Conduct Case MPCC‑2023‑030 Summary
In May 2023, the Complainant filed a complaint with the Military Police Complaints Commission (MPCC) regarding the conduct of military police (MP) members in the handling of her report about missing or stolen artwork. She asserts that the investigation was not thorough and complete and expressed dissatisfaction with the courtesy of MP members.
The Office of Professional Standards (PS) of the Canadian Forces Provost Marshal (CFPM) reviewed the complaint in the first instance. PS determined that the MP investigation lacked thoroughness and completeness, insofar as (i) some email exchanges between the Complainant and the MP investigator were not included in the investigation file, and (ii) the MP detachment chain of command reopened the file, assigning a new lead investigator; thus, by implication, the initial investigation conducted by the subject MP member could not have been complete and thorough. PS also determined that the email evidence did not support claims of impoliteness or disrespect by MP members and noted that retrieving recorded phone conversations was unlikely due to the lack of identified individuals and the time elapsed.
In April 2024, the Office of the CFPM decided to end its investigation under paragraphs 250.28(2)(b) and (c) of the National Defence Act (NDA) as one allegation had been referred to the MP Detachment, and the other was deemed not reasonably practicable to pursue. In May 2024, the MPCC Chairperson formally expressed disagreement with this decision, asserting that the complaint was a proper conduct complaint warranting a determination on its merits under the NDA's police oversight regime. In September 2024, the CFPM reaffirmed the earlier decision, citing an ongoing police investigation which addresses the allegations.
The MPCC remains concerned that the approach of terminating complaints without investigating them undermines the accountability and transparency mandated by the NDA. It advised the Complainant that the April 2024 decision did not originate from the MPCC and informed her of her right to request a review as the Office of the CFPM did not inform her of this right when closing her file. In September 2024, the Complainant exercised this right and referred the complaint to the MPCC for review.
Following its review, the MPCC found that the MP investigation into missing or stolen artwork was inadequate only in that the subject MP member failed to document his investigative steps and did not include relevant email communications in the police investigative file. The overall scope and quality of the investigation were reasonable in the circumstances, considering the specific request for assistance and the constraints imposed by COVID-19. The MPCC also found that the allegation that MP members were impolite or disrespectful in their communications with the Complainant is not supported by the available evidence.
The MPCC made four recommendations to the CFPM to address both individual conduct and broader systemic and procedural deficiencies:
- Reminding all MP members – especially the subject – of their obligation to document all investigative steps and ensure relevant emails are promptly added to the investigation file;
- Reminding all MP members – especially the subject – of the importance of documenting every contact in an open investigation, including notifying parties when a matter is closed and confirming their understanding;
- Reminding the subject MP member of the best practices and the requirements for documenting investigative and/or administrative activities in both the investigation file and police notebook, in accordance with the relevant CF MP Orders; and
- Ensuring all MP members receive training on communicating clearly with complainants regarding the status of investigations.
In December 2025, the MPCC received the CFPM’s Notice of Action. Of the four recommendations, the MPCC considers that three were accepted by the CFPM, while one partially accepted. For the accepted recommendations, the CFPM stated only that “action [is] to be taken.” Although these responses lacked detail, the recommendations themselves were sufficiently specific to indicate the required actions. The remaining recommendation is considered partially accepted, as the CFPM’s response did not provide enough information to determine whether it fully addressed the substance of the recommendation.
- Date modified: