2018 Annual Report | Public Trust and Confidence

Conduct Complaint Filed

Anyone may make a conduct complaint regarding the Military Police 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 is encouraged.

Complaint Investigated by the CFPM

As the CFPM investigates a complaint, the MPCC monitors the process. At the conclusion of the investigation, the CFPM provides a copy of its final disposition of the complaint to the MPCC. The MPCC 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 (see section viii).

Request for Review

Complainants may request the MPCC review the complaint if they are not satisfied with the results of the CFPM’s investigation or disposition of the complaint.

MPCC Reviews Complaint

This involves an examination of documentation compiled by the CFPM’s office during its investigation, as well as consideration of applicable legislation, and relevant military and civilian police policies and procedures. Depending on the case, the MPCC’s review may involve interviews with witnesses, including the complainant and the subject of the complaint.

MPCC Releases Interim Report

At the completion of the review, the Chairperson sends the Interim Report to the MND, the Chief of the Defence Staff (CDS) and the CFPM, setting out the MPCC's findings and recommendations regarding the complaint.

Notice of Action

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

MPCC Releases Final Report

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

How the MPCC Carries Out Its Reviews and Investigations of Conduct Complaints

In response to a request from a complainant for a review, the MPCC follows the steps described below:

• The MPCC conducts a preliminary review of the complaint and the related Military Police (MP) files and records, which the Canadian Forces Provost Marshal (CFPM) is obligated to provide, in order to determine how to respond to the request for review; including, whether an investigation is required, the scope of the investigation warranted and how to approach the investigation. The Chairperson may also delegate a Commission Member to handle the file.
• A lead investigator is assigned and, with MPCC legal counsel, reviews the evidence and other materials gathered during the CFPM's investigation of the complaint. This could be hundreds of pages of documents, emails, handwritten notes and reports, and many hours of witness audio and video recordings.
• The lead investigator, in consultation with the assigned legal counsel, prepares an Investigative Assessment (IA) for consideration and approval by the Chairperson or delegated Commission Member. The IA is a report summarizing all the available evidence, and identifying any further lines of inquiry which may be necessary in order to conclude the review of the complaint: further documents or records to be obtained; research on issues of law, MP policy or policing best practices; or witness interviews. Where further investigation is deemed appropriate, the IA will also include timeline and budget estimates which must also be approved.
• If the IA, as approved by the Chairperson or delegated Commission Member, indicates that there is sufficient information to decide the complaint, either with or without further records and/or research, the Chairperson or delegated Commission Member will proceed to prepare the Interim Report, containing the MPCC's findings and recommendations regarding the complaint.
• If the Chairperson or delegated Commission Member determines that witness interviews are required in order to decide the complaint, the assigned investigator(s) will proceed to conduct the interviews. The additional information obtained from these interviews will be summarized and added to the IA to produce an Investigation Assessment Report (IAR). Once the IAR is completed to the satisfaction of the Chairperson or delegated Commission Member, the MPCC will then proceed to the preparation of the Interim Report.
• As described in the previous section, the Interim Report is provided to the MND, the CDS and the CFPM for an official response in the form of a Notice of Action. The Notice of Action will be considered in the MPCC’s Final Report, which will be sent to the parties to the complaint, the relevant departmental officials, as well as anyone who has satisfied the MPCC that they have a substantial and direct interest in the case.

Interference Complaint Filed

Any member of the Military Police who conducts or supervises investigations and believes a member of the CAF or a senior official of the DND has interfered with or attempted to influence a Military Police member investigation may file a complaint with the MPCC.

MPCC Investigates

The MPCC has sole jurisdiction to investigate interference complaints. 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 process is complete, the MPCC begins its investigation.

MPCC Releases Interim Report

The Interim Report includes a summary of the MPCC’s investigation, as well as its findings and recommendations. This report is provided to the MND, the CDS, if the alleged interference was carried out by a member of the military, or to the Deputy Minister (DM) of National Defence, if the subject of the complaint is a senior official of the DND; and to the JAG and the CFPM.

Notice of Action

The Notice of Action is the official response to the Interim Report. It indicates the actions, if any, which have been or will be taken to implement the MPCC’s recommendations.

MPCC Releases Final Report

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

Conduct Complaint Summary MPCC 2015‑016: Alleged Rudeness and Aggression at Traffic Stop

The subject Military Police member was off duty and driving his personal vehicle. He attempted to pull over the complainant (a service member) for seemingly erratic driving on a military base. However, the complainant refused to pull over because the Military Police member was off duty.

About five hours later the complainant was driving off-base, when the subject Military Police member, now on duty and in a patrolcar, accelerated rapidly out of a coffee shop/convenience store lot with his emergency lights activated, pulled in front of other vehicles and pulled over the complainant. The subject Military Police member said something to the effect of, “Remember me”, and proceeded to issue the complainant two offence notices, one for careless driving, related to the alleged eratic driving earlier that day, and another for driving with an expired vehicle registration validation. Other drivers exited their vehicles and walked over to the scene to see why the complainant had been pulled over and to ask why the Military Police member accelerated so quickly away from the coffee shop/convenience store that he caused dirt and stones to be thrown up onto the vehicles behind him. The subject Military Police member apparently told the bystanders in an aggressive and rude manner to go away from the scene of the traffic stop.

The complainant filed his conduct complaint a few days after the events. The Military Police PS Section, under the Deputy Commander CF MP Gp, construed the complainant to be taking issue only with the second incident. They noted that the off-base traffic stop, when the complainant was issued with the offence notices, was for a legitimate purpose and had been authorized by the Military Police member’s supervisor. As such, PS concluded that the on-duty traffic stop was not an abuse of his powers to detain the complainant in retaliation for their earlier on-base encounter, nor was it the result of a personal vendetta. PS did, however, conclude that his demeanor during this traffic stop was unprofessional and aggressive.

The complainant requested a review by the MPCC.

The MPCC reviewed the available evidence, and interviewed witnesses including two witnesses not interviewed by PS.

The MPCC concluded that the subject Military Police member was wrong to have attempted to pull over the complainant’s vehicle during the first interaction. Pursuant to the applicable Military Police Group Orders, the alleged careless driving on the part of the complainant was not sufficiently serious to justify the off-duty intervention, particularly using his personal vehicle. The MPCC also found that the subject Military Police member drove in an overly aggressive manner in his efforts to get the complainant to pull over, and that he was unprofessional in his demeanor while addressing the complainant.

However, given that the complainant was able to disregard the demand to pull over, and the brevity of the encounter, the MPCC did not agree that the complainant had been wrongly detained.

With respect to the second encounter, the MPCC concluded that there was legal authority to stop the complainant off-base in relation to the earlier incident on-base. However, the Military Police member did not demonstrate good judgment in executing the traffic stop as the complainant could simply have been served with a summons; and, in any event, the need to issue the offence notices relative to the earlier incident was not so urgent as to justify rapidly accelerating out of a parking area and cutting off other vehicles. In terms of the Military Police member having abused his authority by directing bystanders away from the scene where he was engaged with issuing the offence notices to the complainant, the MPCC determined that, while the Military Police member did have such authority, the words and tone he used were inappropriate.

As Military Police chain of command had taken some remedial measures in relation to the subject MP, the MPCC did not see the need to make a recommendation to this effect.

The CFPM accepted the MPCC’s findings.

Conduct Complaint Summary MPCC 2016‑039: Alleged Failure to Investigate Harassment Allegations

The complainant attended a Military Police Unit in November 2015 to report that she had been a victim of harassment while she was a reservist. During an interview, the complainant provided a number of examples of alleged harassment and furnished various documents intended to support her allegations.

In response, the Military Police member advised her that her complaint of harassment did not fit within the Military Police mandate to investigate and, accordingly, her file would be closed. She replied that the conduct about which she complained did fall within the Code of Service Discipline, set out in Part III of the NDA.

The complainant then sent an email to the MPCC asking why the Military Police were not investigating her allegations of harassment. In her email, she cited the definition of harassment in section 264 of the Criminal Code. The MPCC referred the complaint to the CFPM for an initial review and disposition as a conduct complaint.

The PS office of the CFPM informed the complainant that it had consulted on the definition of criminal harassment in the Criminal Code as well as other definitions of harassment. PS told the complainant that the substance of her complaint did not meet the definition of criminal harassment as that offence is set out in section 264 of the Criminal Code. It further informed the complainant that the actions of Military Police members were proper. PS suggested other possible avenues the complainant could pursue her harassment complaint, such as a CAF Harassment Investigation, the CAF/DND Ombudsman or making a human rights complaint. PS then cited section 250.28(2)(c) of the NDA in saying that no further investigation into the matter was required.

The complainant then referred her complaint to the MPCC for review. The MPCC identified three subjects in the conduct complaint and two allegations: that a Military Police member failed to investigate the complainant’s allegations of criminal harassment and applicable Code of Service Discipline offences; and, that the Military Police member’s chain of command failed to order that an investigation be conducted into the complainant’s allegations.

The MPCC reviewed the Military Police file materials obtained from the CFPM. It also conducted legal research on whether allegations of workplace harassment could result in Code of Service Discipline charges.

The MPCC found that this complaint could not be sustained for two main reasons. One was that the conduct complained of, even if every allegation were taken to be true, did not rise to the level of criminal harassment as set out in the Criminal Code. The other reason was that the allegations so lacked in consistency and particulars that not even a lesser standard of harassment could be met. The reasonableness of the decision not to pursue this matter criminally was bolstered by the fact that numerous possible administrative remedies were readily available. The MPCC made one recommendation: that Military Police members set out clearly their reasons for how they exercise their discretion in deciding whether or not to pursue an investigation into alleged wrongdoing.

The CFPM accepted the MPCC’s findings, and accepted in part the MPCC’s recommendation, stating that while he agreed with the MPCC that direction regarding the documenting of investigative discretion is required, since the original investigation that led to this complaint was concluded, a new CF MP Gp Order has already been put into effect which addresses the concerns raised by the MPCC.

Conduct Complaint Summary MPCC 2017‑055: Alleged Wrongful Recording of Phone Call

This complaint concerned the alleged recording of a telephone conversation the complainant had with a Military Police member. In an email to the PS Section of the CFPM, the complainant stated that she spoke to a Military Police member on the day in question in order to lodge a complaint about the conduct of other Military Police a few days earlier. She alleged that at the end of the conversation the Military Police member informed her that their conversation had been recorded. The complainant objected to this, stating that the recording of a conversation must be acknowledged by the parties to it at the outset. She wished the recording of the conversation to be destroyed and all communications with her to be in writing.

On December 11, 2017, the PS Section of the CFPM wrote to the complainant referring her to section 184 of the Criminal Code which makes it an offence to intercept (record) private communication unless a person has the consent to intercept of the originator of the communication or the intended recipient. PS concluded that the intended recipient of the communication (the Military Police member) was entitled to record it and was not obliged to inform the complainant of his doing so. Given that one party to the conversation had consented to it being recorded, PS concluded that no criminal offence or misconduct had been committed. It therefore informed the complainant that there would be no further investigation of the complaint as per paragraph 250.28(2)(c) of the NDA.

On December 18, 2017, the complainant requested a review by the MPCC.

The MPCC identified one subject of the conduct complaint and one allegation. The subject of the complaint is the Military Police member who spoke with the complainant on the telephone and, at the end of the conversation, is said to have informed the complainant that their discussion was being recorded. The allegation is that the member improperly recorded the complainant’s telephone conversation by not advising her in advance that he was doing so.

Having reviewed the file materials, the MPCC determined that an investigation was required in order to determine why there was no recording provided to the MPCC of the telephone conversation in question. Subsequent inquiries revealed that the subject Military Police member denied that any recording was made of the telephone conversation with the complainant. He further denied that he told the complainant he had recorded their conversation. Also, the MPCC was advised by PS in a letter dated February 14, 2018 that “there is no telephone recording between the complainant and the Military Police member as calls are not recorded when transferred from the dispatch phone to the patrol phones.” Thus, the MPCC was left with two conflicting versions on whether or not the alleged incident occurred. As the information provided by PS that such calls are not recorded corroborated the version of the subject Military Police member, the MPCC, on a balance of probabilities, found the allegation to be unsubstantiated.

The MPCC went on, however, to determine that, even if the Military Police member had recorded the conversation, this would not have constituted misconduct. While section 184 of the Criminal Code imposes a general prohibition on the interception of private communications, paragraph 184(2)(a) of the Criminal Code provides an exception where a person has the consent, express or implied, of either the originator of the private communication or of the recipient, to intercept the conversation. In this instance, the intended recipient of the communication was the Military Police member who would, in the circumstances as alleged, have implicitly consented to its being recorded.

The MPCC further determined that the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure would not apply in this instance, since any such recording could not be said to have been made for a law enforcement purpose, as the complainant was not suspected by the Military Police of an offence at the time.

In his Notice of Action, the CFPM accepted the MPCC’s finding.

Conduct Complaint Summary MPCC 2017‑004: Alleged Illegal Detention for Urine Sample Due to Faulty Certification of Drug Recognition Expert

The complainant was charged with drug-impaired driving under the Criminal Code following an incident that occurred August 17, 2015 in the Royal Canadian Mounted Police’s (RCMP) jurisdiction. A Military Police member assisted with the RCMP investigation as a Drug Recognition Expert (DRE). The Military Police member arrived at the RCMP Detachment, identified himself as a DRE and proceeded to conduct an evaluation on the complainant. Following the DRE evaluation, the Military Police member demanded the complainant provide a urine sample. The Military Police member then realized that he did not have the proper sample collector and had someone from the Military Police Detachment deliver an approved container, resulting in a short delay.

Two months later, the Military Police member forwarded the laboratory urine analysis to the RCMP investigator, explaining that regardless of the fact that he properly determined the category of drugs in the complainant’s body, the criminal charges for drug-impaired driving could not be pursued as his DRE certification had since been rescinded. This was due to an issue with a DRE course evaluator, which led to the rescinding of all the course participants’ DRE qualifications.

The complainant filed a complaint with the MPCC about the conduct of the Military Police member involved. The CFPM’s PS office investigated the complaint in the first instance and found that at the time of the incident, the subject member was qualified to conduct the DRE evaluation as his certification had not been rescinded. As there was no indication of misconduct on the part of the Military Police member, PS determined that no further investigation was necessary.

The complainant requested the MPCC review PS’ disposition of his complaint. The MPCC conducted an investigation into the following allegations: 1) The subject member improperly failed to confirm that he was in fact DRE certified prior to assisting with the RCMP investigation; 2) The subject member intentionally misled the complainant in causing him to believe he was DRE certified in order to have him participate in the examination and obtain his urine sample; 3) The subject member improperly failed to mention in the DRE evaluation narrative that he did not bring the proper container for a urine sample with him to the RCMP Detachment thus requiring him to drive back to the MPU to obtain the correct container; 4) The subject member should not have obtained the complainant’s urine sample three hours and thirty five minutes after the initial DRE demand was read; and 5) The subject member improperly forwarded his DRE and toxicology reports to the RCMP after knowing he was not DRE certified and without advising the RCMP investigator that his report(s) should not be submitted as evidence or forwarded to any party. In addition, the MPCC looked into allegations that the subject member’s supervisors improperly failed to ensure the validity of his DRE certificate following the completion of the course and on the date of the occurrence involving the complainant.

There were no Military Police member notes, shadow file, or Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD) system entry on this incident at the Military Police Detachment where the subject member was stationed at the time of the incident.

The MPCC found all allegations to be unsubstantiated. The MPCC found that the Military Police member was first advised there was an issue with his DRE qualification well after he conducted the evaluation on the complainant. As it was reasonable for him to assume that his DRE status was valid at the time, the MPCC found that the DRE evaluation was done in good faith. The MPCC considered it was not necessary for the Military Police member to mention in his DRE evaluation that he did not bring with him a sample collector, which caused a delay. The MPCC notes the delay in obtaining the urine sample while waiting for the sample collector was in fact very short, and found there was no issue with the timing of the DRE demands or the actions taken as a result. The MPCC considered the Military Police member followed the DRE protocols in place when he sent the DRE evaluation report and laboratory analysis to the RCMP and that it was appropriate for him to do so, as he was assisting with the RCMP investigation. The MPCC noted the Military Police member was upfront, transparent and diligent when forwarding the laboratory analysis, as he duly pointed out that his DRE certificate had been rescinded and that the evidence he obtained could not be used to support a charge against the complainant. Finally, the MPCC found that there was no reason for the Military Police member’s supervisors to question the validity of the DRE certificate following the completion of the course and on the date of the incident, as the certification issue surfaced well after the Military Police member conducted the DRE evaluation on the complainant. Indeed, even if his supervisors had inquired at the time, the answer they would have received was that the DRE certificate was valid.

The MPCC made four recommendations to address certain deficiencies in the investigation that were identified during the MPCC’s review. In particular, the MPCC recommended that the CFPM ensure that Military Police members record all police activities in their notebooks and enter requests for assistance into the CAD system, that the CFPM ensure that Military Police members verify that their DRE kits are complete at all times and in particular when attending at the roadside or providing assistance to other police services, and that the CFPM direct that Military Police members attach a copy of their DRE certificate to their DRE reports.

In response to the Commission’s Report, the CFPM accepted all of the Commission’s findings. The CFPM also accepted three of the Commission’s four recommendations, noting that Observation Letters would be sent to the appropriate Chains of Command.

The recommendation that a copy of the member’s DRE certificate be attached to any DRE reports submitted was not accepted. The reason provided by the CFPM for not accepting this recommendation was that this is not common practice within Canadian and American law enforcement. The Commission noted that this recommendation was meant to set a best practice in order to limit the risk of creating delays in criminal proceedings and in the complaints process as a result of the need to locate the certificate. It should be noted that the MPCC had difficulty in locating and obtaining the subject member’s DRE certificate which resulted in significant delay. As a result, the MPCC was not satisfied with the CFPM’s response to this recommendation.

Ali Al Salem Air Base, Kuwait

Together with the then CFPM, BGen Delaney, MPCC Chairperson had the privilege of visiting the Ali Al Salem Air Base in Kuwait in February 2018. The Chairperson made presentations to the MPs and the Command structure regarding civilian oversight of policing and the MPCC mandate. The Chairperson was particularly pleased to gain a more fulsome appreciation of the MPs’ experiences and challenges while deployed and considered this visit to be of mutual benefit.

Canadian Armed Forces Locations across Canada

These annual visits to military locations across Canada increase awareness of the MPCC’s mandate and activities, build relationships with stakeholders and provide an opprotunity to respond to questions and concerns about the complaints process. The primary audiences are:

• members of the Military Police who may be subjects, complainants or witnesses in conduct or interference complaints;
• the military chain of command, which relies on the services of members of the Military Police to maintain military discipline, but cannot interfere with police investigations; and
• those who may interact with the Military Police because they live, work, or visit a CAF base. The MPCC’s connection to this group is often made through the executive directors and staff of the Military Family Resource Centre (MFRC) at each base.

The MPCC’s goal is to reach as many members of the military family as is possible, while respecting the operational realities of CAF bases and wings across the country and abroad.

In 2018, MPCC staff visited 4^th Canadian Division Training Centre Meaford, Ontario; CFB Shilo, Manitoba; 17 Wing Winnipeg, Manitoba; 5^th Canadian Division Support Base (5 CDSB) Gagetown, New Brunswick; and 4 Wing Cold Lake, Alberta.

The feedback provided by participants who attended the 2018 information sessions at bases and at the CFMPA remained positive and is used to continuously improve the content and style of presentations.

Military Police Academy

In addition to visits to CAF bases throughout Canada, the MPCC continued to have a significant presence at the CFMPA located in Borden, Ontario. Staff and members provided numerous presentations as part of courses for Military Police members at the CFMPA. Throughout the year, the MPCC and Academy staff have continued to collaborate to ensure MPCC presentations are tailored to specific courses. The MPCC looks forward to continuing this interaction with the Military Police Academy.

Canadian Institute's 9^th Annual Law of Policing Conference

The MPCC Chairperson attended the 9^th Annual Law of Policing Conference which took place May 1‑2, 2018 in Toronto, Ontario. The MPCC Chairperson spoke as part of a panel entitled “Conducting Systemic Reviews and Police Oversight”. She provided a comparative overview of models of civilian review and oversight of policing across Canada and the panel discussed some of the challenges facing police oversight bodies today.

Canadian Forces Provost Marshal

The MPCC Chairperson and the CFPM continued the practice of having semi-annual meetings to discuss issues of mutual interest, including their core mandates and objectives. On May 7, 2018, the MPCC Chairperson and Senior General Counsel and Director General met with the outgoing CFPM, BGen Delaney, and the incoming CFPM, BGen Trudeau, to discuss the transition. The Chairperson was honored to attend the CFPM/Commander CF Military Police Group change of command ceremony later that month. On November 22, 2018, the MPCC Chairperson, met with the CFPM along with their respective key staff to discuss issues with respect to the complaints process and to find ways to improve the process.

Further, Colonel Martin Laflamme, Deputy Commander MP Group, accompanied by Major Russell, Lieutenant Eagleson, and Captain Day, provided a presentation to the MPCC on September 18, 2018 during the MPCC’s Operations Workshop. The interactive session provided MPCC personnel with a better understanding of the Military Police’s roles, organizational structure and responsibilities as well as PS operations. The presentations also provided an informative update regarding the Sexual Assault Review Program (SARP) which includes the reopening in September 2018 of certain sexual assault investigations previously dismissed by military police as “unfounded”.

These meetings have been fruitful in ensuring strong lines of communication and a collaborative relationship.

Canadian Forces Judge Advocate General

This year, on April 26, 2018, the MPCC Chairperson and Senior General Counsel and Director General also met with the CAF’s top military lawyer, the Canadian Forces JAG, Commodore Geneviève Bernatchez. The Chairperson and Commodore Bernatchez had an excellent discussion of issues of mutual concern, regarding the efficient and fair processing of complaints. Indeed, this discussion led to a follow-up meeting on October 10, 2018, between the MPCC Senior General Counsel and Director General and the Deputy JAG to continue the discussion.

MPCC-CFPM Working Group

Established in 2015, the MPCC‑CFPM Working Group is an MPCC initiative to establish an ongoing forum to discuss and clarify issues regarding disclosure of Military Police information to the MPCC – specifically regarding what categories of information may properly be exempt from disclosure to the MPCC and how those categories are defined. The group is comprised of senior legal advisors from both organizations. The Working Group met in 2018 and work has commenced to establish a Standing Operating Procedure aimed at addressing some of the concerns regarding redactions to disclosure and making the process more efficient and consistent.

Canadian Association for Civilian Oversight of Law Enforcement

The Canadian Association for Civilian Oversight of Law Enforcement (CACOLE) is a national, non-profit organization of individuals and agencies dedicated to advancing the concept, principles and application of civilian oversight of law enforcement organizations across Canada and abroad. CACOLE is recognized worldwide for its oversight leadership. The MPCC’s Chairperson is a member of CACOLE.

CACOLE’s annual meeting was held this year in Winnipeg, Manitoba from May 27‑30 and was attended by the Chairperson and MPCC staff. This year’s theme was “Civilian Oversight: The Road Forward”. Panel discussions focused on a wide range of topics, including Bias-Free Policing, Professionalization of Oversight, the Role of Governance, and Ethics.

International Commission of Jurists Canada

The International Commission of Jurists Canada (ICJ Canada) is an independent, non-governmental, non-partisan organization, and a registered Canadian charity. Its membership is composed exclusively of members of the legal profession: judges, lawyers, law professors, and law students from across Canada. The ICJ’s mission promotes the cause of international human rights, the independence of the judiciary and the rule of law worldwide. MPCC’s Senior General Counsel and Director General is a member of the ICJ Canada’s Board of Directors in the role of Secretary-Treasurer. In addition, the Chairperson and several MPCC lawyers are members of the organization.

Canadian Bar Association

The Canadian Bar Association (CBA) is a professional, voluntary organization which represents some 36,000 lawyers, judges, notaries, law teachers, and law students from across Canada. Approximately two-thirds of all practicing lawyers in Canada belong to the CBA. Through the work of its sections, committees and task forces at both the national and branch levels, the CBA is seen as an important and objective voice on issues of significance to both the legal profession and the public. The MPCC’s lawyers are members of various sections of the CBA such as Military, Administrative Law and Criminal Law Sections.

Council of Canadian Administrative Tribunals

The Council of Canadian Administrative Tribunals (CCAT) is a national organization that supports the work of administrative tribunals and encourages excellence in administrative justice. The MPCC’s General Counsel and Senior Director of Operations is a member of the Board of Directors and was a speaker at the CCAT Symposium which took place in June 2018. In addition, the MPCC articling student participated in a simulated hearing on December 13, 2018 as part of a training course for new adjudicators.

Association of Professional Executives of the Public Service of Canada

The Association of Professional Executives of the Public Service of Canada (APEX) provides executives with opportunities to develop a strong community of practice, promote their physical and mental well-being, and support excellence in leadership. All members of the MPCC executive team are members of the association. The MPCC’s Senior Director of Corporate Services has participated in workshops and discussions on topics of significance to the public service as a whole such as Bill C‑81, Accessible Canada Act, an Act to ensure a barrier-free Canada.

Crime Prevention Ottawa

Crime Prevention Ottawa is an organization which works closely with local residents, government, police, school boards, businesses, community services, child protection and other partners to reduce crime and build safer communities. The MPCC’s Senior General Counsel and Director General serves as a member of the Board of Directors of this organization.

Michel Séguin (March 2014 – present)
Commission Member

Michel Séguin was appointed as a Commission Member March 6, 2014. He served as Interim Chairperson of the MPCC from March 28, 2015 to October 4, 2015.

Mr. Séguin has extensive operational policing experience, having spent 33 years with the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP). During his service with the RCMP, he held the position of Ethics and Integrity Advisor and adjudicated Code of Conduct hearings. Mr. Séguin retired from the RCMP in 2008 as Assistant Commissioner and the Commanding Officer of “O” Division (Ontario).

After his retirement from the RCMP, Mr. Séguin joined the House of Commons Administration as Director General, Parliamentary Accommodations Services, a post he held for five years.

Mr. Séguin was invested as an Officer of the Order of Merit of the Police Forces in May 2008 and a Serving Member of the Order of the Hospital of St John of Jerusalem in 2002. He is also the recipient of the Commemorative Medal for the 125^th Anniversary of the Confederation of Canada, the Golden Jubilee Medal and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Long Service Medal with Silver Clasp.

Troy DeSouza (October 2015 – present)
Commission Member

Troy DeSouza was appointed as a Commission Member in June 2015.

A long-time resident of Victoria, British Columbia, he has practiced law in B.‑C. for the past 20 years, providing legal advice to local government clients. He has conducted litigation before administrative tribunals, appeal boards, and at all levels of courts in British Columbia.

Mr. DeSouza is also an educator. He has created several courses for local government staff and elected officials. He is a member of numerous professional organizations, and was past Chair of the Municipal Law Section of the Canadian Bar Association, B.‑C. Branch.

Troy DeSouza is a graduate of the University of Windsor’s law school. He had a diverse career before being called to the Bar in 1998. He worked as a consultant for the Attorney General of Ontario, and served seven years in the Canadian Armed Forces where he obtained the rank of Captain.

Bonita Thornton (March 2018 – present)
Commission Member

Ms. Bonita Thornton was appointed as a Commission Member in March 2018. Ms. Thornton is a lawyer, manager and military veteran with extensive government and regulatory experience in administrative and criminal law. Previously she led Investigations Departments at the Law Society of Ontario and the College of Physiotherapists of Ontario.

Ms. Thornton worked for twelve years as a lawyer and officer with the Office of the Judge Advocate General, Canadian Armed Forces. From 2006 until 2012 she held the position of Assistant Judge Advocate General, Central Region, where she oversaw five legal offices across Ontario and provided advice and training to military commanders, police and personnel on a broad spectrum of legal and operational issues. She was deployed to Afghanistan in 2008‑2009 as the senior legal advisor to the Canadian Task Force in Kandahar. Ms. Thornton grew up in Northern Ontario, graduated from Laurentian University and has worked across the country. She graduated from Queen’s Law School in 1997 and was called to the Ontario Bar in 1999. Ms. Thornton has received the Queen Elizabeth II Golden Jubilee Medal, Queen Elizabeth II Diamond Jubilee Medal and 125^th Anniversary of the Confederation of Canada Medal for her contributions to Canada and her community.

Ron Kuban, Ph.D. (May 2018 – present)
Commission Member

Dr. Ron Kuban was appointed as a Commission Member in May 2018. A graduate of the Royal Military College in Kingston, Ontario, he completed his M.Ed. and Ph.D. at the University of Alberta. For the last 48 years, he has been employed in the public sector of Canada and Alberta, and in his consulting company regarding emergency/crisis management.

Dr. Kuban has held numerous senior positions of responsibility, both paid and voluntary. The former includes service as a Commissioned Officer in the CAF, a Commissioner on the Edmonton Police Commission, a Member of the Parole Board of Canada and currently as a Member of the Alberta Social Services Appeals Board.

Dr. Kuban volunteered for over 30 years on numerous Boards at local, provincial and national level, and was recognized for his service. Aside from his military medals, he was awarded the Queen’s Golden and Diamond Jubilee medals, as well as the Alberta Centennial Medal.

Call our information line

613‑947‑5625 or toll-free at 1‑800‑632‑0566

Send us a fax

613‑947‑5713 or toll-free at 1‑877‑947‑5713

Send us a letter

Send us an email

commission@mpcc-cppm.gc.ca

We cannot guarantee the security of electronic communications.

Visit our website

mpcc-cppm.gc.ca