Conduct Case MPCC‑2024‑046 Summary
The Complainant submitted a conduct complaint to the Military Police Complaints Commission (MPCC) regarding alleged military police misconduct during his July 2022 arrest. The complaint was sent to the Canadian Forces Provost Marshal’s (CFPM) Office of Professional Standards (PS) on June 2, 2023, and PS completed its review on October 7, 2025 – two years and four months later. Before that review was completed, the Complainant filed a second conduct complaint with the MPCC, arguing that the CFPM and PS failed to dispose of his initial complaint within the twelve months period required by subsection 250.26(1) of the National Defence Act (NDA).
Because the then-CFPM was the subject of the complaint, it was forwarded to the Chief of the Defence Staff (CDS) for disposition in the first instance, in accordance with subsection 250.26(2) of the NDA. In a written decision dated November 30, 2024, the CDS concluded that the complaint “does not meet the requirements of subsection 250.18(1) of the NDA” because it does not relate to the CFPM’s conduct “in the performance of any of the policing duties or functions” as prescribed in section 2(1) of the Complaints About the Conduct of Members of the Military Police Regulations (Regulations). In other words, the CDS determined that the Complainant’s allegations did not relate to activities that can be made the subject of a conduct complaint under NDA.
On January 6, 2025, the Complainant requested a review of his complaint. He disagreed with the CDS’s conclusion that the matter fell outside of the definition of policing duties or functions in the Regulations, noting that “responding to a complaint” is expressly listed as a policing duty. He further argued that, as the CFPM is a member of the military police, the complaint process does apply. In his request, he also asserted that the CDS was avoiding accountability and had improperly characterized his request as a delay rather than a complaint about the missed statutory deadline.
The MPCC concluded, contrary to the CDS, that PS investigations do constitute “policing duties or functions,” and that this complaint is therefore receivable under the NDA. The MPCC further concluded that the evidence clearly demonstrates that the CFPM exceeded the statutory time for disposing of complaints.
In reaching this conclusion, the assigned MPCC member was informed by the reasons written by a colleague in MPCC 2024-020A, which also involved a complaint concerning a file that had exceeded the statutory timeline. The MPCC Interim Reports in both matters received the identical response from the CFPM and the CDS.
In both cases, the MPCC recommended that the current CFPM (appointed in December 2024) undertake a comprehensive review of internal processes and resource allocation within PS regarding the handling of complaints. The MPCC further recommended that the CFPM implement any necessary reforms arising from this review, and conduct regular audits of PS’s performance in managing the complaints process. These recommendations were intended to address indications of a broad pattern of delay rather than an isolated lapse.
The MPCC’s Interim Report in this case was sent to the CDS in accordance with section 250.32(3) of the NDA. Though the CDS disagreed that the MPCC had jurisdiction in this matter, she acknowledged that the recommendations were constructive and agreed to forward them to the CFPM for review and consideration.
The CFPM declined to provide a Notice of Action, stating that, in her view, the NDA does not require one in these circumstances. She indicated only that she would review the recommendations and “take action where appropriate.” While the statutory obligation to issue a Notice of Action under section 250.51 rested with the CDS (who provided one, referring the matter to the CFPM), the CFPM’s refusal to provide a substantive response limited MPCC’s ability to determine what steps, if any, would be taken in response to the recommendations.
The MPCC concluded that this outcome was concerning, particularly in light of its finding of persistent delays in the handling of complaints by PS, which have the potential to undermine public confidence in the complaints process.
- Date modified: