MPCC-2013-031

On August 29, 2013, the complainant, himself a military police member (MP), filed a complaint with the Office of the Canadian Forces Provost Marshal (CFPM). His complaint related to the actions of a Military Police Credentials Review Board official (subject no. 1) and of a senior MP commander (subject no. 2).

Both of the allegations pertained to the handling of the complainant’s case before the MPCRB. In the case of subject no. 1, the complainant alleged that he improperly modified the documents filed with the MPCRB. In the case of subject no. 2, the complainant took issue with unprofessional language contained in an email response to a message from the complainant raising concerns about the MPCRB documentary record. The email in question from subject no. 2 had been unintentionally sent to the complainant as well as to subject no. 2’s deputy.

In a letter dated September 25, 2013, the CF MP Group Deputy Commander (Deputy Commander) dismissed the complaint for the reasons which follow. In response to the allegation against subject no. 1, the Deputy Commander noted that, as the individual is – and at all material times has been – a civilian, he cannot be the subject of an MP conduct complaint under Part IV of the NDA. With respect to the allegation against subject no. 2, the Deputy Commander determined that the email in question constituted administrative activity, rather than a “policing duty or function” within the meaning of subsection 250.18(1) of the NDA and the regulations made thereunder. As such, such activity could not be the subject of an MP conduct complaint.

In correspondence received October 8, 2013, the complainant requested a review of his complaint by the Commission pursuant to section 250.31 of the NDA.

Having reviewed the relevant MP files and all the documentation provided by the complainant and the office of the CF MP Group Deputy Commander, the Commission is satisfied with the decision by the Deputy Commander that no MP professional standards investigation be pursued in this matter.

With regard to the allegation against subject no. 1, the legislation is clear that only someone who was an MP at the time of the impugned conduct can be the subject of an MP conduct complaint; whereas this individual was a civilian. Moreover, even if the conduct allegations at issue had been made against someone who was an MP at the time – as is obviously the case with subject no. 2 – it is clear that the handling of documents by the MPCRB, and any email discussions thereon, are administrative matters, and therefore cannot be the subject of a conduct complaint under NDA section 250.18.

Date modified: