Conduct Case MPCC‑2019‑004 Summary

The complainant, a Captain in the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF), alleged that an investigation by the Military Police concerning him was not conducted in an expeditious manner. He also alleged that the Military Police did not dismiss the allegations of fraud made against him as being trivial, frivolous, vexatious, or made in bad faith and that the outcome of their investigation was prejudiced by the contents of a labour grievance he had launched. Other allegations were that he was threatened by one of the Military Police investigators, that unknown Military Police members improperly disclosed information concerning the investigation to his superior officer, and that he was not notified of the claims that were made to prompt the investigation of him.

The conduct complaint was dealt with in the first instance by the Professional Standards (PS) Branch of the Canadian Forces Provost Marshal (CFPM) as per subsection 250.26(1) of the National Defence Act. Professional Standards found the complaint to be unsubstantiated and so the complainant referred it to the Military Police Complaints Commission of Canada (Commission) for review.

Upon receipt of the complaint, the Commission requested disclosure of all relevant Military Police file materials from the CFPM. The Commission conducted a detailed review of the materials received from the CFPM, in order to assess whether the Commission needed to take additional investigative steps. The Commission determined that further investigation was necessary, including interviews of the complainant and the subjects.

The Commission identified two subjects of the conduct complaint. At the time of the criminal investigation of the complainant they were both Military Police members assigned to duties as investigators.

The Commission found that the criminal investigation had been conducted in an expeditious manner and that the Military Police had no grounds to dismiss the allegations of fraud made against the complainant as being trivial, frivolous, vexatious, or made in bad faith. The Commission also found no evidence that the subjects had any knowledge of the complainant’s labour grievance, nor any evidence that he had been threatened by one of the Military Police investigators. The Commission found no evidence that unknown Military Police members improperly disclosed information concerning the investigation to the complainant’s superior officer and also found that in the absence of charges being laid, there was no obligation on the Military Police investigators to notify the complainant of the claims that were made to prompt the investigation of him. All the allegations made by the complainant, therefore, were found to be unsubstantiated.

In response to the Commission’s Report, the CFPM accepted the Commission’s findings and observation in this matter.

Date modified: