Conduct Case MPCC‑2024‑020A Summary

The Complainant was the subject of a conduct complaint investigated by the Canadian Forces Provost Marshal’s Office of Professional Standards (PS). The complaint took eighteen months for PS to investigate – six months beyond the one-year time limit for PS investigations as set out in the National Defence Act (NDA). The Complainant alleged that the Canadian Forces Provost Marshal (CFPM) exceeded the statutory time limit for disposing of complaints by PS. The Complainant further alleged that the CFPM failed to send a monthly case status letter one month as required by the NDA.

As the complaint was made personally against the CFPM, it was sent for disposition in the first instance by the Chief of the Defence Staff (CDS). The CDS concluded that the conduct of PS investigations did not constitute a “policing duty or function” and therefore the complaint fell outside the scope of the complaints process.

On review, the MPCC disagreed with the CDS’s jurisdictional assessment. The MPCC noted that “the conduct of an investigation” was expressly listed in the regulatory definition of what constitutes a “policing duty or function.” Applying the modern principle of legislative interpretation, the MPCC concluded that the complaint fell within the scope of the complaints process.

On the merits of the matter, the MPCC concluded that the complaint was substantiated. The MPCC reviewed the relevant disclosure and the information provided by the Complainant – the CFPM declined to respond to questions. The available information clearly established that it took more than one year to dispose of the complaint of which the Complainant was a subject. It was also determined that there was no other ongoing police investigation or judicial proceeding which might have exempted the complaint from the statutory time limit of one year. Regarding the missed monthly case status letter, while PS acknowledged and explained this lapse in the next monthly letter, the gap nonetheless breached the NDA requirements.

The MPCC recommended that the CFPM review PS internal processes and resource allocation with a view to identifying areas for improvement, implement appropriate changes and establish ongoing regular audits of the PS internal process. In the Notice of Action, the CDS continued to disagree with the MPCC on the question of jurisdiction in this matter but acknowledged that its recommendations offered constructive suggestions for improving compliance with statutory requirements.

The MPCC therefore wrote the CFPM inviting her to respond to the recommendations. In response, the CFPM, after reiterating their position on the question of jurisdiction, said simply that she would review the recommendations and “take action where appropriate.” In the Final Report, the MPCC expressed disappointment with this lack of a substantive response by the CFPM to the recommendations.

Date modified:

2026-01-14