This case involves a minor vehicle collision on a CF base involving the base chief’s spouse in which the latter is considered to have been at fault; and the alleged improper opening of a General Occurrence file related to dogs running loose on the base. The complainant was the original investigating MP in both files.
Specifically, the complainant alleged that:
- the base Provost Marshal (base PM) had improperly interfered with a collision investigation by transferring the file to a more junior and inexperienced MP and by effectively directing that no charges would be laid in the case; and,
- the base PM improperly opened a General Occurrence file (related to dogs running loose) under the complainant’s badge number and directed the complainant to scan his notes into the file.
The complainant also made a third, unrelated allegation which was deemed to be a conduct not an interference complaint and the Commission referred it to the Canadian Forces Provost Marshal (CFPM) to be dealt with in the first instance.
The Commission found that:
- it was a legitimate supervisory decision for the base PM to transfer the collision investigation file to a more junior MP because the complainant was going on a 5-day course. The file presented a useful learning opportunity since it was not a serious case, and thus an appropriate one for the junior MP. The circumstances surrounding the decision to transfer the file do not adequately infer any improper intention by the base PM to interfere in the investigation;
- on the issue of the alleged statement attributed to the base PM to the effect that no charges would be laid as a result of the collision, there were some conflicting views. The Commission determined that the base PM did say something which expressed an expectation that charges would not be laid. However, in light of all the evidence, the Commission believes that this was likely the base PM’s personal assumption as to the probable outcome rather than direction to the more junior MP; and,
- it was a legitimate supervisory decision for the base PM to open a General Occurrence file related to dogs running loose as it was a recurring base problem and one that the complainant had dealt with previously. The complainant had already made notes of the incident but had not created a General Occurrence file. At the time the file was created, the complainant was on leave. Asking the complainant, upon his return to the office, to scan his existing notes into the newly opened file was not unreasonable. Those interviewed specified that the file was opened using the more junior MP’s badge number not the complainant’s badge number.
The Commission found the complainant’s two allegations unsubstantiated.
- Date modified: