2019 Annual Report | Two Decades of Oversight – Effecting Cultural Change in Policing

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.

December 1999 First Chairperson, Louise Cobetto, opens MPCC for business

As the first Chairperson, Louise Cobetto had the unique challenge of establishing the MPCC by laying the foundation for the complaints process and establishing relations with the key stakeholders of the CAF . Other reforms during this time frame included: the Military Police Professional Code of Conduct, and the establishment of the Canadian Forces National Investigation Service (CFNIS) as a permanent unit with authority to lay charges under the NDA, commanded by the CFPM.

March 2000 First Interference Complaint Received

Interference Complaints: A Unique Concept

Post-Somalia NDA changes further enhanced Canada’s reputation as a leader in the area of civilian oversight of policing by being the first country to extend such oversight to its armed forces police services. These changes also created an entirely unique mechanism – the interference complaint – to support independence, fairness and transparency in Canadian military policing. Thus, Canadian Military Police – unlike their civilian counterparts – can complain to the MPCC about any attempts by the military chain of command or a senior official of the DND to improperly interfere in their investigations. Independence in the exercise of policing discretion was held by the Supreme Court of Canada to be an element of the rule of law.²

On March 10, 2000, the MPCC received a complaint about a commanding officer’s (CO) decision to proceed with the search and seizure of items related to illegal drugs in soldiers’ quarters, rather than wait for the recommended action of MPs obtaining a warrant and conducting the search. The complaint was resolved informally in a settlement conciliated by the Chairperson, whose report also made a number of observations on related issues.

2002 and 2014 Special Reports

As “improper interference” with a police investigation is not legally defined, the MPCC sought to provide some guidance. A 2002 Special Report Interference with Military Police Investigations: What is it about? contrasted the unique interference complaint mechanism with the criminal offence of obstructing a peace officer. The report highlighted that the burden of proof required for an interference complaint of an ethical nature is less than that required for one of a criminal nature.

Twelve years later, the MPCC revisited the general question of improper interference. An August 2014 MPCC Special Report on Interference described the evolution of ‘improper interference’ over 14 years of complaint decisions. Notably, the report provided guidance as to the MPCC's understanding of how this concept interacted with the duties of MP supervisors. Starting in 2006, the MPCC began to receive interference complaints, unexpectedly, against MPs own supervisors. The MPCC immediately recognized the legitimate and essential role of such supervisors as a special case. They were responsible to guide frontline patrol MPs and investigators in discharging their duties and even in the exercise of their policing discretion. At the same time, supervisors had to act on a principled basis, not intervening in their subordinates’ cases for improper or illegitimate reasons. 

June 2000 First Public Interest Investigation (PII)

Chairperson Cobetto called for this PII into complaints related to CFNIS investigations into allegations of attempted poisoning of a Warrant Officer by his subordinates while deployed in Croatia in 1993. There was controversy over the CFNIS's conclusions that criminal charges were not feasible. The NDA placed a three-year limitation period on such charges at that time. Due to the controversy generated by the CFNIS investigation, the CFPM referred it for review to the MPCC. The January 2001 Final Report of the MPCC found that the CFNIS did not mislead, intentionally or otherwise, the Chief of Defence Staff (CDS) or the Canadian public about the nature of the legal advice on which the CFNIS relied upon in reaching its decision not to proceed with charges.

March 2006 Peter Tinsley, second MPCC Chairperson, convenes first Public Interest Hearing (PIH)

The first PIH related to a complaint about a CFNIS investigation of an alleged sexual assault on a youth at a cadet camp. Another cadet was investigated for the crime, and the suspect’s mother fi led a complaint about her son’s treatment by the investigators. MPCC's December 2007 Final Report in MPCC 2005-024 PIH concluded the CFNIS investigation had been deficient in a number of areas, although there was no indication of prejudice towards the suspect.

October 2006 PII relating to MP investigation of CAF snipers deployed to Afghanistan

This complaint alleged unfair treatment by MPs of members of sniper detachments deployed to Afghanistan in the early days (March 2002) of NATO’s post-9/11 response. The snipers distinguished themselves in their mission, and were ultimately decorated by the United States and Canada. There were, however, concerns about some snipers’ conduct. Two were investigated by the CFNIS for the criminal charge of committing an indignity to the body of a deceased enemy fighter they encountered during operations. As well, one of these two was arrested by an MP for insubordination against a military Padre. No charges were pursued, but the complainants nonetheless felt they were being treated unprofessionally and harassed by the MPs.

After a thorough investigation, the MPCC issued its Final Report in December 2007, concluding the MPs had acted properly in response to the issues brought forward by the chain of command, but recognizing that operational stress no doubt affected the snipers’ perceptions. The MPCC recommended that the CFNIS make timely notification to subjects of investigations.

February 2007 Two public interest cases related to MP treatment of Afghan detainees

Attaran and Amnesty International Canada & BC Civil Liberties Association

Attaran (MPCC 2007‑003) related to possible MP mistreatment, or failure to investigate such, of detainees in Canadian Forces’ custody. Amnesty International Canada & BC Civil Liberties Association (MPCC 2007‑006) involved MPs’ transfers of detainees to the custody of Afghan security forces despite the risk of torture or other mistreatment. In March 2008, the second case was converted into the MPCC's second public interest hearing due to a lack of Government cooperation in producing relevant documents. The Government launched a judicial review of the MPCC's decision to take jurisdiction in the MP detainee transfer complaint.

Additional Complaints

Further complaints were fi led in June 2008, extending the timeframe of the detainee transfer complaint and alleging MPs' failure to investigate the CAF Task Force Commanders who ultimately decided to transfer detainees to Afghan security forces. In September 2008, the MPCC Chairperson merged the new detainee transfer complaints with the existing PIH. The Government launched an additional judicial review challenge to the MPCC's jurisdiction.

Final Report in Attaran PII 

The MPCC April 2009 Final Report in the Attaran PII concluded that MPs were not responsible for the detainees’ injuries – likely sustained during their apprehension by Canadian soldiers in accordance with the applicable rules of engagement. The MPCC also determined that, while there was no attempt to cover up the injuries, the MPs did succumb to chain of command pressure to expedite the detainees’ handover to Afghan security forces, bypassing certain intelligence questioning and identification procedures. The MPCC recommended that the CFPM adopt a more complete command and control structure for MP members under the CFPM, and thus fully independent of the regular chain of command. This recommendation was accepted by the CFPM, and supported the CFPM's efforts to create the CF MP Gp which occurred in April 2011.

Federal Court ruling relating to MPCC jurisdiction

In September 2009, the Federal Court ruled on the judicial review applications regarding the MPCC's jurisdiction. It was ruled that the MPCC had jurisdiction to investigate MPs' alleged wrongful failure to investigate Task Force Commanders’ transfer decisions, but no jurisdiction to pursue complaints about MPs' handover of detainees to Afghan security forces. Government document production continued to be a problem for the Afghan detainee PIH, such that, in November 2009, MPCC Chairperson Peter Tinsley brought the issue before the House of Commons Special Committee on the Canadian Mission to Afghanistan. Subsequently, in 2010, document production improved, allowing the MPCC to complete its hearings.

2011 Federal Court Ruling

In September 2011, the Federal Court ruled on the Government’s judicial review applications to restrict the scope of the MPCC's inquiry in the Afghan Detainee PIH (2008-042). Justice De Montigny dismissed the Government’s application as premature, but still chose to address the Government’s substantive objections to the MPCC’s approach to the PIH. The Court stipulated that the MPCC, and not the Government, should determine relevance, and have some leeway in doing so. The Court even recognized that the MPCC's need to examine records which prove to be outside the scope of its inquiry, in order to satisfy itself that this is the case. In this regard, this decision has important implications for the MPCC and other independent oversight bodies on the issue of disclosure and who has the authority to determine relevance.

Final Report in the Afghan Detainee PIH

In June 2012, after the review of thousands of documents and testimony of 40 witnesses over 47 days of hearings during 2008‑2011, the MPCC issued its Final Report in the Afghan Detainee PIH. It found the complaint allegations to be unsubstantiated, and determined that MPs were not privy to the types of information which might have raised concerns regarding the post-transfer treatment of detainees. Thus, there was no basis for MPs to initiate an investigation into the transfer of detainees. The MPCC recommended improved information sharing between different rotations on external deployments, and within the command structure.

In light of the difficulties and delays encountered in obtaining the necessary disclosure of information in this case, and to enable the MPCC to fulfill its mandate more efficiently in future cases involving sensitive information, it was further recommended that the MPCC be added to the Schedule of designated entities under sections 38.01 and following of the Canada Evidence Act. This would allow the MPCC more expeditious access to relevant sensitive information for the purposes of investigating a complaint, while reserving the issue of public disclosure. This remains an ongoing issue.

May 2007 Brief to House of Commons Defence Committee on Bill C‑7

The MPCC objected to proposed changes in the Bill relating to the MP complaints process in Part IV of the NDA. The Bill purported to implement recommendations of former Chief Justice of Canada Antonio Lamer’s 2003 independent review of the 1998 amendments to the NDA. The MPCC objected to provisions which would have narrowed the Chairperson’s authority to call a PIH or PII, as well as MPCC access to certain information. The Bill did not proceed past First Reading.

February 2009 Final Report in PII into treatment of mental health detainee

This 2008 PII related to the treatment of a CAF member detained by MP and brought to hospital under the Mental Health Act of Ontario. This PII included a survey of the practices of various policing jurisdictions (in particular the use of handcuffs) regarding the treatment of mental health detainees. The MPCC's report resulted in a more nuanced approach to the use of handcuffs and other aspects of the treatment of a person arrested and detained for mental health assessment.

December 2009 MPCC celebrates its first decade

April 2011 A new streamlined MP command and control structure

As a result of the work of CFPM Captain(N) Steve Moore, and the MPCC's recommendation in the Attaran PII, the Canadian Forces placed all MP units under the command of the CFPM in a new formation, the CF MP Gp. MPs can, however, be detached from the command of the CFPM and placed under the command of operational commanders for specific military roles in support of military operations.

September 2011 Glenn Stannard, third MPCC Chairperson, convenes third PIH

In April 2011, the MPCC's third Chairperson, Glenn Stannard, launched a PII into complaints by the parents of Cpl Stuart Langridge, Shaun and Sheila Fynes, regarding CFNIS investigations of their son’s death. The major theme was that the investigations lacked independence and objectivity and were insufficiently thorough. This became a PIH in September 2011.

In March 2015, the MPCC issued its Final Report following an extensive process involving the analysis of over 22,000 pages of material and 62 days of hearings. The MPCC found a number of deficiencies in the CFNIS investigations, including an inexplicably long delay in notifying the Fynes of the existence of their son’s suicide note and giving them a copy. However, the MPCC found no evidence of CFNIS bias or a lack of independence in conducting the investigations. Improvements were recommended for supervision, policies and training in complex investigations; notably, that efforts be made to second CFNIS investigators to civilian police services in order to gain better ‘field’ experience in the conduct of sudden death investigations.

October 2011 Submissions to the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs regarding Bill C‑15

In 2011, the Government tabled legislation that proposed a new NDA section 18.5(3) to authorize the Vice Chief of the Defence Staff (VCDS) to direct the CFPM in the conduct of specific Military Police investigations. This provision was seen by the MPCC to threaten CFPM and other MPs’ investigative independence, contrary to reforms introduced to military policing post-Somalia. Chairperson Stannard appeared before both the House and Senate committees reviewing Bill C‑15 to oppose this amendment and recommended deleting the provision. The MPCC took no issue with the general supervisory role of the VCDS vis-à-vis the CFPM nor with the authority of the VCDS to issue general instructions. Bill C‑15 became law in June 2013 without the MPCC's suggested amendment.

November 2015 Hilary McCormack, fourth MPCC Chairperson, launches PII into Anonymous Complaint about MP abuse of Afghan Detainees

Chairperson Hilary McCormack launched this PII in response to an anonymous allegation of abuse during 2010‑11 MP training exercises. Allegedly, detainees were terrorized in holding cells by MPs practicing various aggressive techniques to deal with prisoner riots. The complainant expressed concern that no charges resulted from investigations by CFNIS and the chain of command. This was the first MPCC PII based on an anonymous complaint.

July 2016 Comprehensive timeliness review of complaints process

The MPCC is sensitive to, and shares concerns about, the length of the conduct complaint review process. This led to a comprehensive MPCC internal review of its process and the introduction of enhanced mechanisms to ensure the timely completion of investigations as well as new procedures to monitor progress.

April 2018 Chairperson Hilary McCormack calls PII relating to MP investigation of alleged torture of Battle School trainees

A complaint from former CAF member Mr. Jeffrey Beamish led to the latest PII, relating to his treatment, and that of other platoon members, during Infantry Battle School Training at Canadian Forces Base (CFB) Wainwright, Alberta, from October 1983 to March 1984. The complainant alleges his group of over 30 recruits were subjected to inhumane treatment, amounting to torture, during a prisoner of war scenario exercise. This experience led him to suffer from various conditions including major depression, post-traumatic stress disorder and night terrors. A CFNIS investigation had concluded without charges.

Conduct Case Summary MPCC 2015‑045

Insufficient Investigation of Alleged Improprieties

A former Reserve officer and instructor at a Cadet Camp wrote to the JAG about alleged misconduct by staff members over a number of years and the unit’s response. The Commanding Officer (CO) of the CFNIS responded that these issues were raised previously in other CFNIS investigations, and no further action was warranted.

The complainant disputed this and filed a conduct complaint against the CO CFNIS with the MPCC. The MPCC first referred this to the Deputy Commander (DComd) Canadian Forces Military Police Group, who was unable to review the matter for seven months due to ongoing judicial proceedings. His decision letter agreed with the CO CFNIS that there was insufficient new information to warrant further investigation.

The dissatisfied complainant requested a review by the MPCC, which broke the complex complaint down into four allegations.

The first two related to the alleged conduct of the complainant’s CO in seeking, obtaining and disclosing information pertaining to the CFNIS investigation of a Cadet staff member who was then facing two charges of sexual assault before the courts.

The third allegation involved an incident reported by one of the alleged victims of sexual assault, who said she had been urged by another Cadet to drop her criminal complaint. This incident was reported to one of the CFNIS investigators, but not properly addressed.

The fourth allegation pertained to two historical incidents of sexual misconduct involving Cadet Camp staff. The complainant reported these to CFNIS but suspected proper action had not been taken. The first incident involved alleged obscene pictures of cadets with firearms. The CO had apparently given directions not to report this to the Military Police. The second incident related to a 20-year old alleged sexual act (off-base) between an instructing officer and an underage cadet.

The MPCC conducted an extensive review of the relevant material.

The MPCC found the first two allegations to be unsubstantiated. With respect to the complainant’s issues regarding his CO's efforts to obtain the information provided for the CFNIS investigation, they had been previously reported and addressed. The MPCC also concluded the disclosed information was neither confidential nor sensitive and that the CO CFNIS was correct that the matter did not warrant investigation. The MPCC found the second allegation to be unsubstantiated. It was determined that, as a member of the relevant chain of command, the complainant’s CO would have been entitled to access to the information in question.

The third allegation was substantiated. There was no evidence in the CFNIS investigation file of this incident having been reported to a CFNIS investigator, as the complainant claims he was advised by the sexual assault complainant. Moreover, the relevant CFNIS investigator did not recollect this when asked by the MPCC. Thus, an alleged sexual assault victim being told by one of her fellow Cadet instructing officers to drop her criminal complaint should have been new information for the CO CFNIS to address when responding to the complainant’s letter to the JAG. If true, this suggested a serious problem in that Cadet Instructor Unit. Because the information in allegation three was second-hand, there was a significant possibility of misunderstanding among the parties involved. Given that the identities of both parties to this alleged telephone conversation were known, it would have been easy to make some basic inquiries.

The MPCC found the fourth allegation to be substantiated, determining that CFNIS follow-up was inadequate.

Accordingly, the MPCC recommended further consideration of the matters raised by the complainant in allegations three and four. The MPCC also recommended that the CFPM direct MP members to ensure all emails related to an investigation are scanned into the relevant MP investigation file. This was found lacking in this case, and was a problem which further complicated an already challenging review by the MPCC.

The CFPM accepted the MPCC's findings and recommendations.

Conduct Case Summary MPCC 2016‑038

Serious Allegations against Unnamed Individuals

A former member of the military reported that she had been a victim of a number of assaults during her service. During a voluntary interview, the complainant provided several examples of alleged assaults and furnished documents intended to support her allegations. Given the serious nature of some allegations, responsibility for the investigation was assumed by the CFNIS.

Ultimately, having found no corroborating evidence and having sought further legal advice, the CFNIS investigators concluded their investigation and informed the complainant that the file was being closed unless additional information came to light. Dissatisfied with this, the complainant brought the matter to the MPCC.

The MPCC referred the complaint to the CFPM for an initial review and disposition. The Professional Standards (PS) office of the CFPM sought, but did not get, particulars from the complainant. Ultimately, PS wrote the complainant that in the absence of any specific allegations against any Military Police member, the review of her complaint did not identify any evidence of MP misconduct.

She then referred her complaint to the MPCC for review. The MPCC identified two subjects in the conduct complaint – the CFNIS investigators assigned to look into the alleged assaults. Three allegations were made against each investigator, concerning the lack of a thorough investigation into a number of alleged assaults.

Upon receipt of the complainant’s request for review, the MPCC requested disclosure of all relevant MP file materials from the CFPM. After an initial assessment, the investigators reviewed the materials received from the CFPM in detail to assess whether the MPCC needed to take additional investigative steps.

The MPCC determined that an investigation was necessary, including interviews of the complainant and the two subject members. At the conclusion of its investigation, the MPCC found that the subject members’ exercise of discretion to either not investigate certain allegations or not lay charges in others was reasonable. The evidence gathered by the CFNIS investigators was not sufficient to justify a criminal prosecution. The reasonableness of the decision not to pursue these allegations was bolstered by the fact that any prosecution would be very difficult given the length of time since the alleged assaults were reported to the police.

The MPCC made one recommendation regarding the need for training to emphasize the importance of noting the reasons why an investigation was or was not pursued.

The MPCC also made one observation. In this file, PS made several requests of the complainant to provide particulars of the complaint, claiming that there were no specific allegations made against any Military Police member. While there is no difficulty in asking for details when a complaint is considered vague, the MPCC observed that PS used the complainant’s failure to provide particulars as a reason not to deal with the complaint.

The CFPM accepted the MPCC’s findings as well as the recommendation.

Interference Case Summary MPCC 2017‑043

Alleged Interference of Evidence Tampering

The complainant Military Police member, alleged that a supervisor had interfered with one of his criminal investigations by deleting crime scene photographs from a camera’s memory card.

The MPCC conducted a detailed review of all relevant Military Police file materials received from the CFPM to assess whether to conduct additional investigative steps. The MPCC confirmed one subject of the interference complaint – the supervisor who was alleged to have deleted the crime scene photographs – and determined that further investigation was necessary, including interviews of the complainant, the subject, and one witness.

The MPCC found that the evidence gathered was insufficient to conclude who had deleted the crime scene photographs or when this had been done. The allegation that the complainant’s supervisor had interfered in his criminal investigation was therefore unsubstantiated. However, the MPCC's investigation revealed deficiencies in how photographic evidence was being stored as well as in the coaching provided to the complainant. As a result, the MPCC recommended closer monitoring of all officers’ adherence to the evidence procedures outlined in the MP Orders regarding the chain of custody for photographic evidence. Further, the MPCC made a recommendation enhancing the coaching provided by senior MPs to junior MPs.

Conduct Case Summary MPCC 2017‑015

Chain of Command had Legitimate Interest in Witness’s Information

A Reserve Force officer in the Cadet program became a prosecution witness in a sexual assault case against a fellow instructing officer in the Cadet Camp. The alleged victim was a female officer in the Cadet Instructor Cadre (CIC). The complainant played a role in this alleged victim bringing forward her complaint to the CFNIS.

These events prompted an internal administrative investigation by the Cadet Camp chain of command (CoC). This process discovered other female CIC members allegedly subjected to the accused’s sexual misconduct. One agreed to report her story to the CFNIS, while the others preferred not to reopen the issue. As a result, the accused CIC officer was charged with a second sexual assault. The two cases were tried together and the officer was acquitted.

However, prior to and during the trial, various members of the complainant’s CoC sought information which he considered to be inappropriate. He believed that these efforts amounted to interference with – or intimidation of – a witness, and therefore, witness tampering.

The DComd, Canadian Forces Military Police Group, responsible for MP Professional Standards, reviewed the file, and dismissed the complaint without further investigation on the basis of paragraph 250.28(3)(a) of the National Defence Act (complaint deemed “frivolous, vexatious or made in bad faith”).

The complainant requested a review by the MPCC, which investigated two allegations. The first was that the subject CFNIS investigator was wrong to decline to pursue a CFNIS investigation into the complainant’s concerns about witness interference, etc., namely: (a) improper attempts by the complainant’s immediate CoC to communicate with him about problems at the Cadet camp; (b) intimidation by the JAG legal advisor; and, (c) unwanted contact by the national Cadet command and their inquiry officer’s naming of one of the sexual assault complainants. The second allegation was that the subject CFNIS investigator should have disclosed these alleged incidents of witness interference to the defence counsel of the accused CIC officer.

After thoroughly reviewing all documentation and the CFNIS file material disclosed to the MPCC, the MPCC found both allegations to be unsubstantiated. In concluding that the first allegation was unsubstantiated, the MPCC found it was reasonable for the subject CFNIS investigator not to reopen a criminal investigation in the sexual assault case. It was noted that the complainant had previously consulted with the relevant CFNIS investigator on the file and been advised that certain information could safely be shared with his CoC; and this information was identified. It was also reasonable for the CFNIS investigator not to open a criminal investigation regarding the JAG legal advisor’s statement. The MPCC found that there was nothing to suggest intimidation in the criminal sense (i.e., involving a threat of violence) or obstruction of justice.

Finally, the MPCC concluded it was reasonable for the subject CFNIS investigator not to investigate the other matters because: the complainant had left the CAF ; the evidence portion of the sexual assault trial was concluded; and the Criminal Code prohibition on revealing the names of sexual assault complainants applies to publication and not to private conversations.

In light of these findings, the second allegation was also unsubstantiated as the MPCC determined that there were no incidents of improper witness contact that would have required disclosure to the defence in the sexual assault prosecution.

In response to the MPCC's Report, the CFPM accepted the MPCC's findings.

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 opportunity 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 possible, while respecting the operational realities of CAF bases and wings across the country and abroad.

In 2019, outreach activities focused on military bases in Ontario. MPCC staff visited CFB Kingston, CFB North Bay, the MP detachment of the National Defence Headquarters Carling and the CFNIS in Ottawa, CFB Petawawa and CFB Toronto.

 The feedback provided by participants who attended the 2019 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. This fall, the Chairperson and the Director General and Senior General Counsel of the MPCC visited the CFMPA and had the opportunity to tour the facility, observe training exercises and learn more about its history and heritage. As well, the Commandant of the MP Academy, Lieutenant-Colonel Battista, provided a very thorough briefing on the training curriculum. 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 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 policing oversight leadership. The MPCC's Chairperson is a Director and Secretary to CACOLE.

CACOLE's annual meeting was held this year in Toronto, Ontario from May 23 – 26 and was attended by the Chairperson and MPCC staff. This year’s theme was Civilian Oversight: Experience, Challenges & Opportunities. The Chairperson of the MPCC presented on the topics of de-escalation and stripsearches. A wide range of topics were discussed over the two days of the conference, including Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, Indigenous Perspectives, Cannabis and Bias Free Policing.

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 primarily 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, Julianne Dunbar, is a member of the ICJ Canada’s Board of Directors. This past year, Ms. Dunbar was a co-organizer of the ICJ's military law conference titled Facing Changes in the Military While Respecting the Rule of Law: Emerging Responses and Legal Issues which took place on June 10, 2019. In addition, the Chairperson and several MPCC lawyers are members of ICJ Canada and attended the conference.

Canadian Forces Provost Marshal

The MPCC Chairperson and the CFPM continued the practice of having annual meetings to discuss matters of mutual interest, including their core mandates and objectives. On June 26, 2019, 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. These meetings have been fruitful in ensuring strong lines of communication and a collaborative relationship.

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.

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.

Mr. Séguin is an active member of the RCMP Veterans Association, the International Association of Chiefs of Police and is a Life Member of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police and the Ontario Association of Chiefs of Police.

Troy DeSouza (October 2015 – June 2019)
Commission Member

Troy DeSouza was appointed as a Commission Member from June 2015 to June 2019.

A long-time resident of Victoria, British Columbia, he has practiced law in B.‑C. for the past 21 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 49 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

Note: We cannot guarantee the security of electronic communications.

Visit our website

mpcc-cppm.gc.ca

Follow us on Twitter

@MPCC_Canada