2023 Annual Report

Table of Contents

• Message From the Chairperson
• Organizational Information
• Organizational Chart
• The Complaints Process
• Year in Review – Operations
  1. Statistics
  2. Oversight Challenges
  3. Decisions at a Glance
  4. Access to Justice
  5. Outreach & Engagement
• Year in Review – Corporates Services
  1. Financial Statement
  2. Diversity, Accessibility & Inclusion
  3. Mental Health and Employee Well-Being
• Corporate Information
  1. Organizational Profile
  2. Organizational Contact Information
  3. Operating Context

Letter of Transmission to the Minister

March 26, 2024

The Honourable Bill Blair, P.C., C.O.M, M.P.
Minister of National Defence
National Defence Headquarters
MGen George R. Pearkes Building
Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0K2

Dear Minister Blair:

Subject: Military Police Complaints Commission of Canada – Annual Report 2023

In accordance with subsection 250.17(1) of the National Defence Act, I submit the 2023 annual report of the Military Police Complaints Commission of Canada, for tabling in Parliament.

In this annual report, you will find a discussion of significant aspects of the Military Police Complaints Commission of Canada’s activities and challenges during 2023, including summaries of some of its reviews and investigations of complaints, all of which is respectfully submitted.

Sincerely,

Original signed by

_________________________________
M^e Tammy Tremblay, MSM, CD, LL.M.
Chairperson

Message From the Chairperson

I am pleased to present the 2023 Annual Report for the Military Police Complaints Commission of Canada (the MPCC). This report provides information about the MPCC’s achievements in providing civilian oversight of the military police and details the challenges faced this year in holding the military police accountable.

As I complete my first year as Chairperson for the MPCC, I am inspired and motivated by the important work before us. I am well supported by a small and very dedicated team who enables the MPCC to reach its ambitious objectives day after day. I want to thank my predecessor, Bonita Thornton, who assured a very capable leadership of the MPCC in the interim period before my appointment, and a heartfelt thank you to the MPCC’s Senior General Counsel and Director General, Julianne Dunbar, for her unparalleled support during this transition.

One of my top priorities as Chairperson is enhancing military policing through accountability and ensuring an independent oversight system that is transparent, accessible, timely and rigorous. At a time when public confidence in policing is at the forefront of public discourse, strong accountability mechanisms are critical to maintain public trust in policing.

The MPCC continues to see an increase in the number of complaints it receives. In fact, in 2023, the number of complaints almost doubled. The complaints we received are also more complex in nature. Indeed, this year, the MPCC dealt with matters such as bias in sexual assault investigations, arson, and attempted murder. The MPCC deemed it necessary, in some of these cases, to hold public interest investigations. In light of the increase in numbers and complexity, and because the MPCC’s baseline funding has not changed since 2013, we sought additional funding to help us tackle the increased workload. This funding allowed us to add resources to an overtaxed system to maintain efficiency and timeliness of the complaint process.

This year, the MPCC issued 13 final reports outlining the results of its investigations into allegations of military police misconduct or allegations of interference in a military police investigation. The MPCC made 23 recommendations to the Canadian Forces Provost Marshal (CFPM) aimed at ensuring the highest standards of conduct in military policing. The CFPM accepted 39% of those recommendations, which marked a significant decline in the number of recommendations accepted from previous years.

In addition to its operations, the MPCC has invested resources in diversifying its engagement activities and outreach goals, to increase knowledge of the MPCC’s mandate and role for civilians, unions, training bases and organizations supporting victims of sexual misconduct, as well as strengthening its role in the broader federal and provincial oversight regime. It has increased its accessibility by improving employment processes and investing in the physical and virtual office, information technology, communication tools and the design and delivery of its programs and services.

Our most significant challenge this year was the erosion of the MPCC’s ability to exercise civilian oversight of the military police. The MPCC used a great deal of resources and effort to obtain relevant documents from the CFPM to enable it to conduct fair and fulsome investigations. In too many instances, we have seen resistance or refusal to disclose information the MPCC needs to investigate complaints; a reduction in the number of recommendations accepted by the CFPM; a refusal to respond to recommendations; a refusal to provide updates on files currently being reviewed by the Office of Professional Standards of the CFPM; and restrictive and unilateral interpretation of the MPCC’s jurisdiction. The MPCC has been forced to turn to the Federal Court to obtain the documents it is legally entitled to review as part of its mandate. These unfortunate barriers dilute the will of Parliament in setting up a strong oversight system for the police and must be addressed.

As such, it is more critical than ever that the National Defence Act be amended now to strengthen the MPCC’s mandate, and, to ensure the MPCC has access to information needed to investigate complaints, and in particular the authority to summon witnesses outside of a public interest hearing. Independent oversight of law enforcement is crucial to police legitimacy and effectiveness; one cannot exist without the other. However, that legitimacy and effectiveness are eroded when the civilian police oversight body cannot easily access the information needed to perform its review and oversight roles, and encounters resistance in implementing recommendations aimed at improving the system. This year, I wrote to the past and current ministers of National Defence urging the implementation of the recommendations pertaining to the MPCC from the Third Independent Review of the National Defence Act and additional legislative proposals to strengthen the civilian oversight regime of the military police. Implementing these recommendations would demonstrate to Canadians that all federal law enforcement officers in our country, including those who wear military uniforms, are held to account for their conduct by an independent oversight mechanism that has the legislative means to effectively do so.

Me Tammy Tremblay, MSM, CD, LL.M
Chairperson

Organizational Information

The Military Police Complaints Commission (MPCC) is an administrative tribunal created by Parliament to provide independent, civilian oversight of the Canadian Forces Military Police.

Mission

To promote and ensure the highest standards of conduct by the military police, to deter interference in military police investigations and to enhance public confidence in military policing.

Mandate

The MPCC’s mandate is set out in Part IV of the National Defence Act, which provides the following powers:

• monitoring investigations by the Canadian Forces Provost Marshal of military police conduct complaints;
• reviewing disposition of conduct complaints about military police members, at the request of complainants;
• investigating complaints of interference made by military police members;
• conducting public interest investigations and hearings;
• reporting findings and making recommendations directly to the military police and national defence leadership.

Vision

To be an authority on independent civilian oversight of the police by providing an impartial, accessible and efficient complaints process.

Values

Organizational Chart

The Complaints Process

The MPCC has jurisdiction over two types of complaints: conduct complaints and interference complaints.

Conduct Complaints

Any person may file a complaint about the misconduct of a member of the military police in the performance of their "policing duties or functions." These complaints are first handled by the Canadian Forces Provost Marshal (CFPM), with the MPCC monitoring this process. The CFPM then submits its final report, and if the complainant is dissatisfied with the CFPM’s conclusion, they may ask the MPCC to review the complaint. In such a case, the MPCC receives a copy of the relevant documents, determines the scope of the review, i.e., whether an investigation is required, then draws conclusions and, where appropriate, issues recommendations in an interim report. The interim report is submitted to the Minister of National Defence, the Chief of the Defence Staff (CDS) and the CFPM.

The MPCC then receives a notice of action from the CFPM, which is the Canadian Forces’ (CF) official response to the interim report. This describes the actions that have been or will be taken in response to the MPCC’s recommendations, if any. After reviewing the notice of action, the MPCC issues its final report, which is provided to the complainant, the subject(s) of the complaint, the CFPM and other statutory recipients.

The diagram below shows the steps in the process of handling a conduct complaint.

Interference Complaints

Only military police members conducting or supervising an investigation may file an interference complaint if they believe that a member of the CF or a senior official of the Department of National Defence has interfered with or attempted to influence their investigation. Unlike conduct complaints, the MPCC has exclusive jurisdiction over interference complaints.

Following its investigation, the MPCC draws conclusions and, where appropriate, issues recommendations in an interim report. This report is submitted to the Minister of National Defence, to the Chief of the Defence Staff if the alleged interference was on the part of a member of the CF, or to the Deputy Minister if the subject of the complaint is a senior officer of the department, as well as to the Judge Advocate General and the CFPM.

The MPCC then receives the notice of action from the Chief of the Defence Staff or Deputy Minister, outlining what action, if any, has been or will be taken as a result of the MPCC’s recommendations. The MPCC then issues its final report which is provided to the complainant, the subject(s) of the complaint, the CFPM and other statutory recipients.

The diagram below outlines the steps involved in handling an interference complaint.

Public Interest Investigations or Hearings

The Chairperson of the MPCC may also, at any time, cause a public interest investigation or hearing to be held into a complaint of misconduct or interference, which gives her different powers. The decision of whether the public interest would be served by causing the MPCC to conduct a public interest investigation is made on a case-by-case basis. Considerations taken into account in past decisions to conduct public interest investigations include:

• the inherent seriousness of the alleged conduct;
• the systemic issues raised in the complaint;
• the involvement of senior officials or military officers;
• the public interest in the issues related to the complaint;
• process considerations which suggest that it would be more fair, credible, coherent or efficient to deal with the complaint as a public interest case.

Further information on our complaints handling process can be found on our website in the following sections:

• How to Make a Complaint
• Complaints Process
• Forms

Year in Review – Operations

Statistics

The CFPM is generally responsible in the first instance for dealing with conduct complaints, except for complaints against him. A complainant who is dissatisfied with the CFPM’s handling of their complaint can refer the matter to the MPCC to review. Interference complaints are handled by the MPCC in the first instance.

Service Standards

This year, the MPCC was only able to issue interim reports in non public interest cases within 18 months, 57% of the time instead of the standard we aim for, which is 70%. Several reasons contributed to this:

1. the complexity and volume of complaints;
2. the unexpected departure of two of our part-time decision makers;
3. the delays from the military police in disclosing relevant information required to investigate complaints, which will be detailed below.

Trends

The MPCC noted a significant increase in the number of new conduct complaints received in 2023, creating a historically high workload. In fact, the average number of conduct complaints in the past 3 years was 47, and this year, it increased to 84. The number of requests for information from the public also increased this year.

In light of this increase to the number of complaints, the MPCC onboarded three new contract investigators to the team and hired additional in-house counsel, to help us tackle the increased workload in an efficient and timely manner.

Over the past two years, the MPCC has also seen an important increase in the number of complaints received related to sexual misconduct.

The MPCC has noted an alarming increase in the number of its final report recommendations that were not accepted by the CFPM in 2023, compared with previous years.

Oversight Challenges

Oversight of law enforcement is critical to police legitimacy and effectiveness. This past year was a challenging year for the MPCC in its mission to provide accountability through independent oversight of the military police. As outlined in the next section, the legislative scheme for military police accountability is one of the weakest models in Canada and is in dire need of modernization. That said, even the current requirements provided under the National Defence Act, are, at times, not respected. This erodes the accountability scheme of the military police, at a time when public confidence in policing is at the forefront of public discourse.

Resistance of the CFPM to Oversight by the MPCC

This resistance has manifested in several ways. The CFPM has, at times, refused to disclose information to which the MPCC is legally entitled and that it requires to fulfill its legislative mandate. In other areas, where cooperation with requests for information from the MPCC is within the discretion of the CFPM, the CFPM has declined to provide any assistance. Furthermore, in instances where relevant information is disclosed to the MPCC, it has been subjected to excessive redaction, preventing the MPCC from having full disclosure of the evidence it requires to fulfill its mandate.

Refusal to Disclose Information

In the case of conduct complaint reviews, the CFPM has a clear legislative obligation to provide the MPCC with all information and materials relevant to the complaint. However, in respect to four complaints in 2023, the Deputy CFPM refused to provide such disclosure. Initially, this took the form of an outright refusal, and after months of correspondence, the Deputy CFPM provided only part of the requested material.

In these instances, the Deputy CFPM stated that the subject matter of the complaint–the conduct of complaint investigations by the Office of Professional Standards of the CFPM–did not constitute "policing duties or functions." The Deputy CFPM advised that such complaints fell outside the process established in Part IV of the National Defence Act and therefore, the requested disclosure was not relevant. Further, the office of the CFPM argued that the materials requested were not reviewed by the Deputy CFPM in addressing the complaint so it would not be disclosed.

The MPCC and the CFPM have had differences in the past over the scope of military police "policing duties or functions" that may be the subject of a complaint. However, unlike previous instances, the CFPM refused to disclose the information based on his unilateral determination of the MPCC’s jurisdiction. It is highly improper for the police service that is overseen to determine the jurisdiction of the oversight body. Further, the failure of the CFPM to review pertinent documents cannot determine the MPCC’s authority to review material relevant to the complaint at hand. This results in an absurdity where the CFPM can limit the relevant disclosure simply by not assessing it in the first instance. In fact, the Federal Court confirmed that it is the responsibility of the MPCC, as the independent oversight body mandated by Parliament to "make its own, independent decision as to what documents it considers necessary for a full investigation of the complaint." ^{Footnote 2}

The Court further wrote, "[…] [a]t the end of the day, one principle must stand: it is for the Commission, not for the government, to determine ultimately what documents are relevant to its inquiry. If it were otherwise, the Commission would be at the mercy of the body it is supposed to investigate. This was clearly not the intent of Parliament." ^{Footnote 3}

Ultimately, the MPCC was forced to apply to the Federal Court to compel the CFPM to provide full disclosure. This is a worrisome precedent, which not only adds significant costs and delays to the complaints process but also erodes the mechanism of oversight. These cases are pending before the Federal Court of Canada.

Excessive Redactions of Personal Information

In other cases, disclosure provided by the office of the CFPM has been over-redacted, notably with respect to personal information, citing Privacy Act concerns. The reasons provided by the CFPM for redacting this information were that he had privacy concerns and that he was taking a victim-centred approach. However, the Privacy Act allows for this sharing of information, and conduct complaint reviews impose an express statutory disclosure obligation on the CFPM.^{Footnote 4}

Further, nothing in the National Defence Act authorizes the CFPM to withhold personal information from the disclosure it provides to the MPCC.

In one case, this resulted in the MPCC having to apply to the Federal Court to compel the CFPM to provide unredacted disclosure. This application is pending.

Redactions of Solicitor-Client Privilege Information

Another ongoing area of concern with respect to the redaction of information concerns information asserted to be subject to solicitor-client privilege. The MPCC, unlike the other federal police oversight body, is unable to compel the CFPM to provide solicitor-client privileged information received by military police in performing their policing duties. This undermines the value of an independent review of complaints.

As noted in past Annual Reports, this lack of access is problematic where a complaint targets military police conduct which resulted from the application of legal advice received. In such cases, the MPCC is prevented from independently verifying that the subject military police member provided accurate information to legal counsel and whether that legal advice was followed. This information can be critical to assessing the reasonableness of the military police member’s actions.

Disclosure of Crown Briefs

A related category of information–Crown briefs–was also a concern. Crown briefs are essentially the police investigation file–the fruits of the investigation–which police provide to prosecutors to enable them to advise on the laying of charges, where applicable, and to conduct the prosecution. They also form the basis of disclosure to the accused where a prosecution proceeds.

Until recently, the CFPM considered Crown briefs to be subject to solicitor client privilege and had refused to disclose them to the MPCC. This has been a concern for the MPCC since at least 2020, and it has engaged with the CFPM and the Judge Advocate General on numerous occasions.

In November 2023, the Office of the CFPM informed the MPCC that, where applicable, Crown briefs will be disclosed to the MPCC. This is an encouraging development and a positive step towards increased collaboration in the disclosure of information.

Failure to Respond to MPCC Recommendations: MPCC 2021–058

In one case, the CFPM declined to respond to recommendations directed to him in an MPCC interim report related to an interference complaint (Interference Case MPCC 2021 058 Summary).

Responding to MPCC recommendations at the interim report stage is a legislatively required step in the oversight process. It allows the MPCC to assess whether a complaint has been properly addressed by the responsible military authority. Declining to respond to recommendations evades the very purpose of the independent civilian oversight of the military police established by Parliament.

This particular case was an interference complaint, which obliges the Chief of the Defence Staff to provide a notice of action in response to the MPCC’s recommendations. However, the MPCC addressed its recommendations to the CFPM precisely because they related to military policing. The Chief of the Defence Staff, in his notice of action, expressly deferred to the CFPM on the issue. Nonetheless, the CFPM refused to substantively respond to the recommendations.

The actions taken or reasons for not implementing recommendations made in an interim report are documented and assessed in the final report issued at the conclusion of the MPCC’s investigations. It is a critical part of how it fulfills its mandate as an oversight body. This process ensures transparency and accountability for the complainant and more broadly to Canadians, as this information is included in its Annual Report.

The MPCC has also noted a sharp decline in the number of its recommendations being accepted by the CFPM during the past year. While the CFPM is not obligated to accept the MPCC’s recommendations, it is noteworthy and concerning that the number of rejected recommendations has risen to 39% this year. Additionally, 22% of recommendations were only partially accepted.

Parallel MPCC–CFPM Conduct Complaint Investigations

Another challenge to MPCC oversight has been the CFPM’s insistence that Part IV of the National Defence Act contemplates parallel conduct complaint investigations by the MPCC and the Office of Professional Standards of the CFPM. The MPCC disagrees with this view.

There are two investigative paths for conduct complaints under the National Defence Act. The first provides that the conduct complaint is investigated in the first instance by the Office of Professional Standards of the CFPM and subsequently, if a review is requested by the complainant, by the MPCC. The second provides that the MPCC can, at any stage, declare a public interest investigation (or hearing) and commence an immediate investigation, at which point, the National Defence Act expressly relieves the CFPM of his investigative duties relative to the complaint.

Where the MPCC has chosen to investigate in the public interest, it reflects a considered determination that it, and not the overseen military police, should deal with the complaint. A concurrent investigation by the military police impairs the ability of the MPCC to deliver oversight through an independent investigation.

Challenges in Accessing Documents in Public Interest Investigations

After years of providing disclosure to the MPCC in public interest investigations, the CFPM now considers that he has no legal duty to disclose relevant information to the MPCC in such cases, citing that the National Defence Act contains no express provision requiring him to do so. This reading of Part IV of the National Defence Act is both inconsistent with a modern, purposive interpretation of the Act and is at odds with fundamental principles of oversight of law enforcement. It leads to the absurd consequence that the MPCC would have less power when investigating complaints that raise matters of public interest, compared to when it is conducting a review of a complaint that raises no broader public interest concerns.

The MPCC cannot reconcile the aim of Part IV of the National Defence Act–promoting transparency and public accountability of the military police–with the narrow interpretation that disclosure obligations no longer exist once a public interest investigation is declared.

This position of the CFPM is particularly concerning given that public interest cases are those which the MPCC Chairperson has determined are in the greatest need of independent oversight. While the MPCC Chairperson has the option in such cases to hold hearings and thereby gain access to a subpoena power, access to relevant information by the MPCC should not require recourse to this exceptional and costly procedure. This also was emphatically the view of the Federal Court of Appeal in a 2005 decision regarding the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) complaints process.^{Footnote 5}

The gaps in the MPCC’s authority to access relevant information not only make its oversight task more difficult, but it undermines the credibility of that oversight. This, in turn, does a disservice, not only to the Canadian public, but to the military police themselves, a point that was also made by the Federal Court of Appeal with respect to the RCMP in the case cited above.^{Footnote 6}

Refusal to Provide Updates on the Implementation of Accepted Recommendations

The MPCC, as a result of an Audit Report recommendation that it implement a follow-up process to track the progress of accepted recommendations, sought the CFPM’s assistance in receiving such updates.

The intent was to enhance accountability to the public by tracking the progress of accepted recommendations through the MPCC providing updates on its website and in its Annual Report.

Unfortunately, the CFPM refused to provide updates to the MPCC on the implementation of its recommendations on the grounds that he does not have a legislative obligation to do so. The MPCC acknowledges that there is no such specific legislative requirement; however, it is in line with the purpose of the National Defence Act to instill trust in the police. The CFPM’s position undermines transparency and accountability.

It is unfortunate that the CFPM opted to forego this opportunity to let Canadians know, and particularly those affected by these recommendations, if and how they were implemented. This is particularly disappointing since the CFPM does not report on how he is implementing these recommendations in his Annual Report.

Failure to Provide Updates on Complaints

In past years, the MPCC was on a distribution list that received unit action letters indicating the status of complaints with the Office of Professional Standards of the CFPM, as per the legislative provisions that require the CFPM make available to the MPCC any information contained in the record of complaint, which he is required to keep. This was an important tool that enabled the MPCC to fulfill its legislative mandate.

Recently, the practice of copying the MPCC on these unit action letters was abruptly discontinued and the CFPM’s office has indicated to the MPCC that it will no longer provide these updates, citing an absence of a legislative obligation to do so. The MPCC disagrees with this interpretation. This reversal is even more surprising given that providing these updates to the MPCC requires no additional resources or effort from the office of the CFPM, as it is an exercise it already engages in. It is disheartening to see that while there is a whole-of-government move towards more transparency, the CFPM is instead choosing a "closed by default" approach.

It is in the interest of the public and Parliament for the MPCC to have the ability to monitor and assess progress on complaints. Unit action letters support accountability and transparency in the complaint process and this sudden change weakens the ability of the MPCC to provide adequate oversight and impairs its ability to fulfill its monitoring function.

Failure to Provide Notice of Right to Review

Finally, the CFPM has indicated his intention to cease advising complainants of their right to a review by the MPCC in cases where the CFPM determines that the complaints system does not apply to the complaint. This is a direct breach of the legislation. Section 250.28 (3)(b) of the National Defence Act provides that, whenever there is a direction by the CFPM declining to investigate a complaint, the notice to the complainant must include notification of the right to request a review by the MPCC under s. 250.31 of the National Defence Act. In one case, the MPCC has advised a complainant of their right to review, even though Parliament intended that such notification be the responsibility of the CFPM.

Inadequacy of the Legislative Framework Governing the Oversight of the Military Police

Since the creation of the MPCC in 1998, there have been no significant changes to improve independent civilian oversight of the military police, despite two past Independent Reviews of the National Defence Act. As a result, the MPCC now lags far behind other police oversight mechanisms in Canada and in particular the federal police oversight body on which it was originally modelled, the Civilian Review and Complaints Commission for the RCMP. The gaps between the two federal civilian oversight regimes are most troubling in terms of the MPCC’s lack of powers to access information required to investigate complaints. For example, the MPCC has no legal authority to compel witnesses to testify, provide evidence or produce documents, outside of a public interest hearing. It is reliant upon the good will of those with knowledge concerning complaints to cooperate voluntarily. Without subpoena power, the MPCC has less power than the CFPM to access information, as under the Military Police Professional Code of Conduct there is a duty imposed on members of the military police (other than subjects of complaints) to cooperate with CFPM investigations. Again, an oversight body should not have less access to evidence than the organization it oversees. This gap is a hindrance to the MPCC’s efforts to deliver an appropriate level of independent accountability to military policing.

The Report of the Independent Review of the National Defence Act by former Supreme Court Justice, the Honourable Morris J. Fish, published on April 30, 2021, was welcomed by the MPCC as it includes several key recommendations to strengthen the civilian oversight of the military police. In June 2021, the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Forces accepted in principle Justice Fish’s recommendations and signalled their intention to implement them as quickly and effectively as possible. Unfortunately, at the moment of writing this report, the MPCC has not been advised of a timeline for the implementation of Justice Fish’s recommendations as they pertain to the MPCC, despite numerous requests.

It is understood that the military police complaints process is just one aspect of the independent legislative review process, but it is an important one, as paradoxically, we now find ourselves in an era when public confidence in military policing is under greater challenge than ever.

Call for Legislative Reform to Improve Civilian Oversight of the Military Police

Due to its ongoing concerns with the noted gaps in its oversight regime, and the lack of apparent progress in implementing the Fish report recommendations, the MPCC Chairperson wrote to both the past and current Minister of National Defence in July and August 2023 respectively [Letter to the Minister on Legislative Reform Proposals to Enhance Civilian Oversight of the Military Police & Evergreen Matrix of MPCC Proposals for Legislative Reform]. In these letters, to which a matrix document was attached, the MPCC set out the various recommendations in Justice Fish’s report, described their impact and significance and discussed other proposals for reform which would strengthen oversight and improve the complaints process.

Implementation of Justice Fish’s report recommendations, and other reforms proposed by the MPCC to the Minister, would go a considerable way to increase the transparency and accountability of the military police. It would also enhance MPCC access to information, thereby enabling the MPCC to discharge its mandate from Parliament more effectively on behalf of Canadians. At the moment of finalizing this report, the Minister of National Defence had not yet responded to the MPCC’s recommendations.

Decisions at a Glance

Public Interest Investigations

The section below summarizes ongoing MPCC public interest investigations, as well as those completed by the MPCC in 2023.

Selected Case Summaries

The section below summarizes selected conduct and interference cases completed by the MPCC in 2023.

MPCC Key Recommendations at a Glance

Access to Justice

In June 2023, some employees and members of the MPCC attended a decision-writing seminar by the Canadian Institute for the Administration of Justice. This customized training program was designed for the MPCC team to enable it to write decisions that are more accessible.

The MPCC also revised its registry protocols to improve accessibility for users and include trauma-informed approaches.

In June 2023, MPCC employees participated in a training session on trauma-informed approaches to working with victims of sexual violence. This training, offered by the Ontario Ministry of the Attorney General's Sexual Violence Advisory Group, was designed to give MPCC employees a better understanding of what a person goes through during a traumatic experience, as well as the lasting effects this experience has on the individual.

In September 2023, the MPCC hosted the KAIROS blanket exercise, an interactive learning tool that explores the historical and contemporary relationship between Indigenous and non-Indigenous peoples in Canada. This training, which was mandatory for all employees, is developed in collaboration with Elders, Knowledge Keepers and Indigenous educators. Employees appreciated this initiative, which was designed to support the government's Reconciliation priority.

Outreach & Engagement

The MPCC participated in the Heads of Police Oversight Agencies Annual Meeting and the Annual Conference of the Canadian Association for Civilian Oversight of Law Enforcement (CACOLE). It also participated in meetings of the Heads of Federal Agencies and the Council of Federal Administrative Tribunals Heads (CFATH).

Year in Review – Corporates Services

Financial Statement

Budget Constraint

The MPCC's total actual expenditures for the 2022–2023 fiscal year ending March 31, 2023, amounted to $4,658,493. The table below shows the breakdown of budget allocations for the period of April 1, 2023, to March 31, 2024.

As of December 31, 2023, the MPCC was forecasting an overall budget surplus of $5,000 and had a total of 31 employees (14 in internal services and 17 in operations).

This year, the MPCC has experienced an unpredictable increase in expenses linked to the number and complexity of complaints.

As of December 31, 2023, the number of complaints almost doubled from the previous year and there has been an important increase in the number of complaints received related to sexual misconduct.

As the MPCC's core responsibility is the handling of complaints, it will always be faced with uncertainty as to the number and complexity of cases it will deal with each year. That said, the significant increase in the number of public complaints received this year, as well as the high number of significant issues the MPCC must address, notably with accessing the documents it needs to deal with complaints, has put a heavy strain on the MPCC's resources and hampered its ability to meet expected service standards. In July 2023, the MPCC submitted a request to the Department of National Defence for temporary additional funding for the 2023–2024 fiscal year, which it received.

There has been an increase in the cost of internal support services received from other federal departments under service level agreements. Fixed costs account for half of the MPCC's operating budget and increase each year due to inflation. Based on current projections, operating and fixed costs are set to increase in 2024, exceeding our main expenditure budget (the MPCC’s reference threshold).

Despite these increases in fixed costs, the MPCC's annual budget has remained unchanged since 2013, resulting in a real risk that the MPCC will reach its financial breaking point in the near future. For this reason, in November 2023, the MPCC submitted a request to the Department of National Defence for additional permanent funding starting in fiscal year 2024–2025.

Diversity, Accessibility & Inclusion

The MPCC is committed to strengthening its internal processes, as it strives to become more inclusive and accessible to the benefit of those it serves. The MPCC remains steadfast in using an approach that is trauma-informed, incorporating gender-based analysis plus (GBA+) principles, and viewing its work through an equity, diversity and inclusion lens.

In 2022, First Nations Chiefs of Police, Association of Black Law Enforcers, and Serving with Pride were consulted on the bid selection process for the hiring of contract investigators to attract retired and diverse police officers to the MPCC’s pool of investigators. Several meetings were held during which potential barriers were discussed and feedback was gathered on the proposed criteria prior to posting. In 2023, feedback from these groups continued to influence the recruitment for the pool of investigators.

Corporate Information