Conduct Case MPCC‑2012‑040 Summary
In his complaint, the complainant criticized the adequacy of the investigation conducted in February 2012 by a member of the Military Police in relation to his allegations that some civilian staff and military members had used a high-frequency electromagnetic weapon against his person, causing him personal injury. More precisely, the complainant complained about the apparent inability of the subject to confirm the existence of the names on the list of persons he alleged were involved in the actions against him. According to the written account, the subject had conducted a search in the National Defence database but had been unable to find any of the names provided by the complainant.
The complainant moreover submitted that
“anonymous sources” had spoken to him about the weapon used and had indicated that the electromagnetic shocks he was receiving were being administered by a person working in
“sector 5” at CFB Valcartier. On February 7, 2012, the complainant wrote a letter to the Commander of CFB Valcartier to ask him to deal with the matter. The Base Commander’s office forwarded the letter to the Military Police. The investigator consequently contacted the complainant and was apprised of the complainant’s allegations.
On August 23, 2012, the Deputy Commander of the Canadian Forces Military Police Group, the representative of the Canadian Forces Provost Marshal for matters involving MP professional standards, wrote to the complainant to advise him that the investigator’s review of the actions revealed no breaches of the Military Police Professional Code of Conduct or the Military Police Policies and Technical Procedures. The Deputy Commander determined that there was no need to investigate any further or take further action.
In a letter dated September 23, 2012, the complainant asked that his misconduct complaint be reviewed.
Upon reviewing the file, the Commission noted that, in his investigation, the subject MP had pointed out that the complainant had no evidence of the alleged injuries despite the fact that he had indicated that he had undergone a number of medical examinations. In addition, the MP had contacted the complainant’s father, who had told him that the complainant had received a diagnosis of
“severe psychosis.” Additionally, the complainant’s father had stated that his son had stopped taking his medication and was refusing to see a doctor.
The subject MP determined that the complainant’s allegations were the result of mental health problems and brought the matter to a close on that basis. The Deputy Commander of the Canadian Forces Military Police Group approved the manner in which the investigator had dealt with the file and concluded that no further investigation was needed or reasonably possible under the circumstances. The Commission agreed with this outcome.
- Date modified: