Complaints Process

NOTA : This section of the site is intended to provide an overview of the complaint process only. For detailed information, please consult the relevant laws and regulations.

The Military Police Complaints Commission of Canada has exclusive responsibility for reviews of conduct complaints and to examine interference complaints. It is also responsible for monitoring the way conduct complaints are dealt with by the Canadian Forces Provost Marshal.

The Commission’s Chair may, at any time, initiate an investigation of either a conduct complaint or an interference complaint. If it is a conduct complaint, this action relieves the Provost Marshal of responsibility to deal with the complaint. In addition, any complainant not satisfied with the Provost Marshal's disposition of a conduct complaint, can ask the Commission to review their complaint and the way it was handled.

Complaints Process Chart

Chart - The Complaints Process

Alternate format

The image illustrates the Military Policy Complaints Commission of Canada's (MPCC) complaints process which explains the two processes, namely the conduct complaint and the interference complaint.

  • Conduct Complaint
    • Processing by the CFPM
      • Investigation
        • Complainant Dissatisfied
      • Informal Resolution (does not apply to a conduct complaint of the type specified in the regulation)
      • Refusal to Investigate
        • Complainant Dissatisfied
    • Processing by the Chairperson (at any time, if in the public interest, the Chairperson may take over a complaint and cause the MPCC to conduct an investigation (section 250.38 of the NDA))
    • Complainant Dissatisfied
      • Review by Chairperson
        • Examination of the records of the CFPM
        • Investigation by the Chairperson (in the public interest, the Chairperson may cause the Complaints Commission to conduct an investigation and, if warranted, hold a hearing (section 250.38 of the NDA))
    • Chairperson's Interim Report (in the case of a hearing, the interim report is prepared by the MPCC)
    • Notice of Action to the Minister and to the Chairperson (according to the nature of the complaint, the status or the rank of the subject of the complaint, the person who provides the notice could be the CFPM, the Chief of the Defence Staff, the Deputy Minister or the Minister (sections 250.49 and 250.5 of the NDA))
    • Chairperson's Final Report
  • Interference Complaint
    • Processing by the Chairperson (at any time, if in the public interest, the Chairperson may take over a complaint and cause the MPCC to conduct an investigation (section 250.38 of the NDA))
      • Refusal to investigate
        • Chairperson's Notice
      • Investigation
        • Investigation by the CFPM (exceptionally, the Chairperson may ask the CFPM to investigate)
        • Investigation by the Chairperson (in the public interest, the Chairperson may cause the Complaints Commission to conduct an investigation and, if warranted, hold a hearing (section 250.38 of the NDA))
    • Chairperson's Interim Report (in the case of a hearing, the interim report is prepared by the MPCC)
    • Notice of Action to the Minister and to the Chairperson (according to the nature of the complaint, the status or the rank of the subject of the complaint, the person who provides the notice could be the CFPM, the Chief of the Defence Staff, the Deputy Minister or the Minister (sections 250.49 and 250.5 of the NDA))
    • Chairperson's Final Report
Conduct Complaints

Any person, whether they are a civilian or a member of the military and whether or not they were affected, may complain about the conduct of Military Police (MP) in the performance of “policing duties or functions.”

To help ensure an effective and fair investigation, it is desirable that complaints be made in as timely a manner as circumstances permit (Note: there is a one-year deadline, subject to reasonable extension on application to the Chair of the Commission). Persons considering making a complaint should know that they are not required to provide evidence in support of their allegations when filing complaints. Unlike a court action, the complaints process is not adversarial. The Canadian Forces Provost Marshal (CFPM) and the Commission will conduct their own investigations of the complaint and, in particular, they will obtain any MP or other Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) records necessary to investigate the complaint.

The Complaints about the Conduct of Members of the Military Police Regulations state that any of the following constitute “policing duties or functions”:

  • the conduct of an investigation;
  • the rendering of assistance to the public;
  • the execution of a warrant or another judicial process;
  • the handling of evidence;
  • the laying of a charge;
  • attendance at a judicial proceeding;
  • the enforcement of laws;
  • responding to a complaint; and
  • the arrest or custody of a person.

It should be noted that the regulations specifically exclude from the description of policing duties or functions “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.”

Under the legislation, the CFPM is responsible for dealing with conduct complaints. The Commission monitors the CFPM’s handling and disposition of these complaints.

Conduct Complaints Process

Conduct Complaint Filed

Any person may make a conduct complaint regarding the MP in the performance of their policing duties or functions, including individuals not directly affected by the subject matter of the complaint. Such complaints are initially dealt with by the CFPM.

Informal Resolution

The legislation encourages the CFPM to attempt, if appropriate and consistent with the regulations and with the consent of both sides, to resolve conduct complaints in an informal manner.

If a complaint is informal, the CFPM is required to prepare a written report of the details, to be signed by both sides, and provide notice of the informal resolution to the Chair of the Commission.

Complaint Investigated by the Canadian Forces Provost Marshal

As the CFPM investigates a complaint, the Commission monitors the process. At the conclusion of the investigation, the CFPM provides a copy of the Report of Findings and Actions to the Commission. The Commission may, at any time during the CFPM investigation, assume responsibility for the investigation or call a public hearing if it is deemed to be in the public interest to do so.

Status Reports

If the CFPM’s examination and/or investigation of a conduct complaint is not completed within 60 days, the CFPM must provide a status report to both sides, and every 30 days thereafter, until the investigation is completed and the results have been reported to all concerned.

Time Limit

Normally, a complaint must be filed within one year of the incident in question. However, at the request of the complainant, the Chair can decide if it is reasonable in the circumstances to extend the time limit.

In applying for an extension of time to file their complaints, complainants should include as much detail as possible, including relevant dates and time periods, in explaining the reasons for the delay in bringing forward their complaint. The decision of the Chair of the Commission on a request for an extension of time to file a complaint is final, subject only to an application for judicial review in the Federal Court of Canada.

Request for Review

Complainants may request the MPCC review a conduct complaint if they are not satisfied with the results of the Canadian Forces Provost Marshal’s (CFPM) investigation or disposition of the complaint.

A request for review must be made in writing. It may be submitted by email, fax, letter, or in person. While there is no time limit to request a review, it is best to do so as soon as possible to ensure a complete, accurate and timely investigation into the events.

The review process involves a review by the MPCC of documentation compiled by the CFPM’s office during its investigation, as well as reviews of relevant legislation and military and civilian police policies and procedures. However, depending on the case, the MPCC's review may involve interviews with witnesses, including the complainant and the subject of the complaint.

Chair's Review of the Complaint

After completing the investigation of a conduct complaint, the CFPM must provide a written report of the findings to both sides.

If a complainant is not satisfied with the CFPM's findings, he or she can ask the Commission to review the complaint. If so, the Commission is required to provide status reports as noted above.

This provision for review by the Commission also applies to conduct complaints that may be dismissed by the CFPM on the grounds the complaint is “frivolous, vexatious, or made in bad faith,” or that the complaint would be dealt with more appropriately under another legislated procedure.

Commission Reviews Complaint

At a minimum, this process involves a review of documentation related to the CFPM’s investigation. However, depending on the case, the MPCC's review may involve interviews with witnesses, including the complainant and the subject of the complaint.

Commission Releases Interim Report

At the completion of the review, the Chairperson forwards the Interim Report to the Minister of National Defence (MND), the Chief of Defence Staff (CDS) and the CFPM setting out the findings and recommendations regarding the complaints.

Notice of Action

The Notice of Action is the official response by the CAF to the Interim Report and it outlines what action, if any, has been or will be taken in response to the Commission’s recommendations.

Commission Releases Final Report

After considering the Notice of Action, the Commission issues a Final Report of findings and recommendations. The Final Report is provided to the MND, the Deputy Minister, and the CDS, the Judge Advocate General, the CFPM, the complainant and the subject(s) of the complaint, as well as anyone who has satisfied the Commission that they have a direct and substantive interest in the case.

Interference Complaints

The Commission has the exclusive authority to deal with interference complaints. Any member of the Military Police (MP) who conducts or supervises an investigation and believes a member of the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) or a senior official of the Department of National Defence (DND) has interfered with or attempted to influence a MP investigation, may file a complaint with the Commission. This process recognizes the special situation of the MP members, who are both peace officers and members of the CAF subject to military command.

Interference Complaints Process

Interference Complaint Filed

Members of the MP who conduct or supervise investigations may complain about interference in their investigations.

Commission Investigates

A preliminary review is conducted to determine whether an investigation should be commenced, the scope of the investigation and how to approach the investigation. Once this is completed the Commission commences an investigation.

Commission Releases Interim Report

The Interim Report includes a summary of the Commission’s investigation, as well as its findings and recommendations. This report goes to the Minister of National Defence (MND), the Chief of the Defence Staff (CDS) if the alleged interference was carried out by a member of the military or to the deputy minister (DM) if the subject of the complaint is a senior official of the DND, the Judge Advocate General (JAG) and the Canadian Forces Provost Marshal (CFPM).

Notice of Action

This official response to the Interim Report indicates the actions, if any, which have been or will be taken to implement the Commission’s recommendations.

The Commission Releases Final Report

Taking into account the response in the Notice of Action, the Commission prepares a Final Report of its findings and recommendations on the case. The Final Report is provided to the MND, the DM, the CDS, the JAG, the CFPM, the complainant and the subject(s) of the complaint, as well as anyone who has satisfied the Commission that they have a direct and substantive interest in the case.

Date modified: