Conduct Case MPCC‑2016‑009 Summary

This complaint arose out of an alleged trespass by soldiers on private property. The complainant, a former Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) Reserve officer, has a residence across the street from an armoury, and a heated interaction occurred between the complainant and a soldier from the armoury when the latter asked the former to move a motor vehicle parked in front of his residence. During this interaction, profanity was used. However, the main concern for the complainant was that he felt that the soldier’s Chain of Command (COC) tried to cover-up the episode and cause problems for the complainant with his own COC. After a year, during which the complainant had sought to pursue the matter with the soldier’s COC, the complainant referred the matter to the Military Police (MP) of the nearest detachment.

The complainant emailed information to the MP detachment that he considered relevant. The MP detachment reviewed this information and there was an exchange of emails between the detachment and the complainant over the next five months. Ultimately, the MPs closed the file because the complainant was unwilling and unable to meet with them in person: after receiving legal advice, the complainant had decided not to participate in an oral interview; additionally he had moved to a distant location.

The complainant felt that the MPs had merely seized on a pretext – his relocation – as a reason to close the file and not investigate what he felt was a cover-up by the soldier’s COC, which included improper intervention by his own COC. Accordingly, the complainant filed a conduct complaint with the Military Police Complaints Commission of Canada (MPCC).

The conduct complaint was first addressed by the Canadian Forces MP Group’s office of Professional Standards, which found all of the allegations in the complaint to be unsubstantiated. In his request for a review by the , the complainant reformulated his allegations.

After a review of all the documentation, the concluded that the complainant’s allegations were unsubstantiated. In the ’s view, the MPs took reasonable steps in the circumstances to investigate the complainant’s concerns and to respond to his inquiries. The matters raised by the complainant with the MPs were of a delicate nature and subject to different interpretations and perspectives. This being the case, it was reasonable for the MPs to require a personal interview with the complainant in order to proceed to look into his concerns.

Date modified: