Conduct Case MPCC‑2016‑002 Summary

This complaint was based on allegations that, due to misconduct by various Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) personnel, including the investigating military police member (MP) himself, a closed MP investigation file from 2007 involving the complainant – which seems to have led to the complainant’s involuntary release from the military – needed to be reopened. The allegations were referred to members of the Canadian Forces National Investigation Service (CFNIS) for investigation. The CFNIS members reviewed the 2007 investigative file, as well as other related files dealing with MP conduct complaints subsequently made by the complainant regarding the foregoing.

At one point, the CFNIS member in charge of the complainant’s file wrote to the complainant to advise him of the action being taken in response to his allegations and indicating that he would be contacted for an interview when the lead investigator reached that stage.

Subsequently, the complainant was advised that, after careful review of the relevant material, there was no basis to re-open the earlier MP investigation and that the file would be concluded.

The complainant filed a conduct complaint alleging that the CFNIS investigation was biased and inadequate, and that he had wrongly been denied an interview with the investigator.

The Military Police Complaints Commission (MPCC or Commission) reviewed the CFNIS investigation file and determined that the investigators conducted a conscientious review of the relevant material and came to the genuine determination that the earlier MP investigation did not need to be re-opened on the basis of the complainant’s submissions. The MPCC also concluded that an interview of the complainant was not necessary for the CFNIS to conclude its investigation. As such, the MPCC found the complaint to be unsubstantiated.

The MPCC did, however, recommend that the CFNIS take care in its correspondence with complainants to be more precise and not to create expectations of investigative steps that might not ultimately be warranted.

The MPCC noted that this was the sixth time since 2009 that this complainant had sought to use the MP conduct complaints process, as well as the services of the MPs, to re‑open and re‑examine matters pertaining to his release from the CAF. As such, this complaint is repetitive and redundant. The treatment of such complaints is not an appropriate use of public resources of the Canadian Forces Provost Marshal (CFPM) or the MPCC. If such attempts continue, the MPCC indicated that the complainant should expect them to be disposed of in a summary fashion.

In response to the Commission’s Report, the CFPM accepted all of the Commission’s findings. The CFPM also accepted the Commission’s recommendation, and stated it will be immediately implemented.

Date modified: