Jurisdiction Decision (MPCC-2024-051)
Decision on MPCC Jurisdiction Regarding File No. MPCC 2024-051
Overview
On November 21, 2024, the complainant filed a conduct complaint with the Military Police Complaints Commission (MPCC). This complaint concerns the conduct of unknown members of the military police who participated in an active shooter exercise on a Canadian Forces base in November 2024, during which a civilian employee not participating in the exercise was allegedly violently detained by members of the military police on the sidelines of the exercise. The complainant is the employee’s representative and has filed the complaint on his behalf.
Following unsuccessful correspondence, in November and December 2024, seeking additional information from the office of the Canadian Forces Provost Marshal (CFPM) on the exercise and alleged incident, I have decided to render this decision on the jurisdiction of the MPCC with respect to the complaint based on the information available, namely the complaint and the additional information the complainant provided to the MPCC in November 2024.
For the following reasons, I consider that the complaint is within the jurisdiction of the MPCC based on the information we have, as it concerns the conduct of potential members of the military police in the performance of their policing duties or functions.
Context
On November 21, 2024, the complainant filed a complaint with the MPCC on behalf of a civilian employee. According to the complaint, the employee was [translation] “affected and brutalized” by events that occurred during an active shooter exercise in November 2024 on a Canadian Forces base, while he was on site painting. The complaint includes the testimony of the civilian employee who was involved in the incident.
According to his testimony, three or four police officers pointed their weapons at him as he left the painting room on the morning of the exercise. He had been informed of the exercise, but did not know what time it would take place and was not participating in it. One of the police officers allegedly asked him to raise his arms, then ordered him to lie down on the floor and dragged him by pulling on the painter’s outfit and his sweater. The force used by the police officer tore his clothes. The same officer then asked him to lie on his stomach, then on his back, and searched his pockets, removing his wallet and some personal papers, which he threw on the floor. He interrogated him, asking him if he was aware of the exercise and what he was doing on the base. He also ordered him to take off his boots.
The employee claims that everything happened so quickly that he began to think that this was not just an exercise, but a serious incident on the base, and that he was the main suspect. The officer reportedly used [translation] “very aggressive” language towards him, even though he never attempted to resist the search or detention. Before ordering him to leave, the same officer allegedly contacted other police officers outside, telling them that a [translation] “Black employee” was leaving, that he posed no danger and that he had just been searched. He claims to have spent the rest of the exercise outside, in temperatures approaching 1°C. He was wearing only his painter’s outfit and sweater, which had been torn by the police officer.
The employee says he was shocked to have been humiliated and mistreated, and even today, he feels like crying when he thinks about the incident. He is even ashamed to talk about the incident with his family and friends. The incident has had a negative impact on him. He belongs to a vulnerable group and has been re-traumatized by the incident.
On November 26, 2024, the complainant provided additional information regarding his complaint, specifying that he is the employee’s union representative and that the employee wished to be accompanied in this process, and that he has been on leave from work since the incident. The exercise involved both members of the military police and members of the local police service.
On November 27, 2024, I sent a letter to the CFPM advising him of the complaint and requesting additional information regarding the exercise and the alleged incident, as the MPCC was considering its jurisdiction and the possibility of launching a public interest investigation into the matter which contains serious allegations against the military police.
My correspondence of November 27 and December 3, 2024, with the CFPM’s office seeking additional information on the exercise and the alleged incident was unsuccessful. The CFPM did not respond to my request for information, but did request a copy of the complaint, citing subsection 250.21 (2) (c) (i) of the National Defence ActFootnote 1. I note that this provision requires only that the CFPM be “notified” of the complaint, which had already been done in my letter of November 27, 2024.
Consequently, this decision on the jurisdiction of the MPCC in this matter is based on the available information provided by the complainant.
Analysis
The jurisdiction of the MPCC is limited to complaints about the conduct of a member of the military police in the performance of “policing duties or functions,” as prescribed in the Complaints About the Conduct of Members of the Military Police RegulationsFootnote 2 (the Regulations). Section 2 of the Regulations reads as follows:
2. (1) For purposes of subsection 250.18(1) of the Act, any of the following, if performed by a member of the military police, are policing duties or functions:
- a) the conduct of an investigation;
- b) the rendering of assistance to the public;
- c) the execution of a warrant or another judicial process;
- d) the handling of evidence;
- e) the laying of a charge;
- f) attendance at a judicial proceeding;
- g) the enforcement of laws;
- h) responding to a complaint; and
- i) the arrest or custody of a person.
(2) For greater certainty, a duty or function performed by a member of the military police that relates to administration, training, or military operations that result from established military custom or practice, is not a policing duty or function.
In this case, the military police members potentially involved in the complaint were participating in an exercise. Although the exercise was part of a training program, the victim employee was not participating in it. He was on the base performing unrelated work. He claims that he was mistreated when he was detained by police officers, and that their behaviour led him to believe that this was not just an exercise, but that he was the prime suspect in a serious crime on the base. According to the complaint, it seems that he was given little information about the exercise and never consented to participate in it.
Given the lack of information about the exercise and what led up to the incident, as well as the lack of cooperation from the CFPM’s office in providing the requested information, I cannot, at this time, rule on whether it is in the public interest to launch a public interest investigation into this matter.
Considering the training exclusion in the Regulations, I do not believe that the intent of Parliament was to exclude from the conduct complaint process people not taking part in an exercise and who are allegedly mistreated by members of the military police, simply because an exercise was in progress at the time of the incident. In this case, the civilian employee was not participating in the exercise and was allegedly violently detained by police officers. I consider their conduct to be related to the performance of policing duties or functions, specifically the detention of a person. Therefore, in my view, the complaint appears to fall within the jurisdiction of the MPCC. In making this decision, I am not drawing any conclusions on the merits of the complaint.
I hereby transfer the complaint to the office of the CFPM for processing in the first instance in accordance with subsection 250.26 (1) of the NDA. I note, however, that I may, at any time during the examination of a conduct complaint, cause an investigation to be held by the MPCC if it is preferable in the public interest, in accordance with subsection 250.38 (1) of the NDA.
SIGNED at Ottawa, Ontario, this 24th day of December 2024.
Original signed by:
Me Tammy Tremblay, MSM, CD, LL.M.
Chairperson
- Date modified: