MPCC-2006-035

At the time of the incident, the complainant was working the night shift as a commissionaire at the Military Police unit on a Military base. An MP asked him to return three DVDs that he had borrowed. The complainant alleges that, when he went to retrieve them from his drawer, he found only one of the DVDs in question. The complainant and two MPs searched the area. When they failed to find the missing DVDs, one of the MPs and the complainant asked the shift change personnel whether they had seen them. Since the DVDs could not be found, the complainant filled out a theft report and sent an email to all staff. Three days later, the two missing DVDs turned up in the owner’s mail slot and the complainant was informed accordingly. On August 31, 2005, one of the subjects of the complaint asked the complainant to come to his office with his boss. The complainant alleges that the subject was angry and accused him of reporting items that had not been stolen and accusing the MPs and the entire unit. The complainant alleges that he was not given the opportunity to defend himself. On that same date, the subject again sought out the complainant, that time to take him to see the Captain and Warrant Officer. He was informed that what he had done was unconscionable and was handed a letter expelling him from the base. The complainant wrote a letter to the major responsible for making the final decision in order to set out the facts and defend himself. On September 2, 2005, the complainant was informed that he was no longer employed with the base Military Police unit.

On August 14, 2006, the Deputy Provost Marshal, Professional Standards (DPM PS) sent the complainant a final letter in which he indicated that the complaint would not be investigated by Professional Standards as it was of an administrative nature and the police involved had not been performing policing duties or functions. On August 22, 2006, the complainant indicated that he was not satisfied and sought a review.

Upon going over the material relevant to this review, the Military Police Complaints Commission concluded that the complaint was not a complaint respecting conduct contemplated in section 250.18 of the National Defence Act. The incident took place in connection with the performance of an administrative duty rather than “policing duties or functions.” The complaint should have gone through the chain of command of the members concerned.

Date modified: