Files: MPCC-2002-020
MPCC-2002-028
Ottawa, July 14, 2004

Investigated by Commission Members:
Peter Seheult
Odilon Emond
Delegated pursuant to subsection 250.11(3) of the National Defence Act

Volume I: Interim Report

• Acronyms
• Chronology
• Executive Summary
1. Background
2. The Complaints
3. Issues
4. Commission Members' Findings
5. Commission Members' Recommendations

1. Introduction
2. Military Police Complaints Commission
1. Scope of the Public Interest Investigation
2. Methodology
1. Document Review
2. Designated Members
3. Persons Interviewed
4. Assisting the Complaints Commission
5. Legal Framework of the Public Interest Investigation
6. Burden of Proof and Jurisdiction
3. Summary of the Incident, Complaints and Investigations
1. Background to Corporal Hamm's Arrest
2. Warrant Officer Rice Telephones Corporal Hamm to Notify him to Prepare to Deploy to Inuvik
3. Warrant Officer Rice Instructs Military Police Members to Attend Corporal Hamm's Residence and the Subsequent Arrest of Corporal Hamm
4. Events at the 4 Wing, Cold Lake Guardhouse After Corporal Hamm's Arrest
5. Warrant Officer Hamm's Complaint
6. Tasking of Investigations of the Complaint and Notification of Subject Members
7. Verbal Warning Administered of the Corporal Hamm
8. The Canadian Forces National Investigation Service Investigation Report and its Aftermath
9. Professional Standards Investigation Report
10. Deputy Provost Marshal Professional Standards' Letters of Final Disposition
11. Actions Taken Against Warrant Officer Hamm and Corporal Hamm
12. Warrant Officer Hamm's Request for Review and Corporal Hamm's Complaints in the First Instance
4. Commission Members' Findings and Recommendations Subsequent to the Public Interest Investigation
1. Issues 1 and 2: Was the Order to Arrest Corporal Hamm Issued by
   Warrant Officer Rice Proper and Lawful?
   

   Was the Subsequent Arrest by Master Corporal Paul
   and Corporal Murray Proper and Lawful?

1. Background of Corporal Hamm's Arrest on December 12, 2002
1. Events Preceding the Arrest
2. Warrant Officer Rice's Telephone Call to Corporal Hamm December 12, 2004
3. Warrant Officer Rice Instructs Master Corporal Paul and Corporal Murray
4. Events at Corporal Hamm's Residence
5. Return to the Guardhouse
6. Events in Guardhouse Interview Room
2. Commission Members' Findings: Issues 1& 2
1. Knowledge of the Reasons for Corporal Hamm's Sick Leave
2. The Decision to Task Corporal Hamm to Deploy to Inuvik on December 26, 2000
3. Assessments of Credibility of Warrant Officer Rice and Corporal Hamm
4. Use of Profanity by Warrant Officer Rice
5. Warrant Officer Rice's Rationale for Summoning Corporal Hamm of Attend his Office
6. Whether Requiring Corporal Hamm to Attend the Military Police Detachment Was a Recall to Duty
7. The Source of Warrant Officer Rice's Authority to Arrest Corporal Hamm
8. Was Corporal Hamm's Arrest Necessary?
9. Exercise of the Discretion to Arrest
10. Duty of Master Corporal Paul and Corporal Murray to Carry out Warrant Officer Rice's Instruction
11. Failure to Disclose Reason for the Arrest to the Arresting Officers
12. The Effect on the Arresting Officers'Understanding
13. Effect on What Corporal Hamm Was Told
14. Duty of Master Corporal Paul and Corporal Murray to Clarify Warrant Officer Rice's Instructions
15. A Section 9 Charter Analysis: Arbitrary Detention
16. The Charter Right to be Informed Promptly of the Reasons for Arrest
17. Necessity for Corporal Hamm to be Told Why Warrant Officer Rice Wanted to See Him
18. Deputy Provost Marshal Professional Standards' Finding that Warrant Officer Rice Acted Within his Authority and Responsibilities
19. Master Corporal Paul's Note-Taking
3. Commission Members' Recommendations: Issues 1& 2
2. Issue 3 : Was the Release from Arrest by Chief Warrant Officer Pierre Gauvin Proper and Lawful?
1. Commission Members' Finding and Recommendations: Issue 3
3. Issue 4: Did Chief Warrant Officer Gauvin Attempt to Deter Corporal Hamm, in his Office on December 12, 2000, through the Use of Intimidation or Otherwise, from Making a Complaint in Regards to his Arrest?
1. Commission Members' Findings and Recommendations: Issue 4
4. Issue 5: Are the Rights of Complaints Being Negated Due to a Lack of Adherence to Part IV of the National Defence Act, through the Internal Classification of Complaints?
1. Commission Members' Finding and Recommendations: Issue 5
1. The "Internal" Classification of Warrant Officer Hamm's Complaint
2. Potential Effects of the Internal Designation on the Rights of Complaints and Subjects of Complaints
5. Issue 6: Did the Deputy Provost Marshal Professional Standards Properly Handle Warrant Officer Hamm's Complaint?

   Were Corporal Hamm and Warrant Officer Hamm Treated fairly After The Latter Filed his Complaint?

1. Commission Members' Finding and Recommendations: Issue 6
1. The Investigation by the Canadian Forces National Investigation Service
2. The Professional Standards Investigation
3. The Deputy Provost Marshal Professional Standards' Handling of Warrant Officer Hamm's Complaint: The Investigation Process
4. The Deputy Provost Marshal Professional Standards' Handling of Warrant Officer Hamm's Complaint; the Deputy Provost Marshal Professional Standards' Findings
1. Commission of Service Offence by Corporal Hamm
2. Allegation that Corporal Hamm Misled Warrant Officer Hamm
5. Was Warrant Officer Hamm Treated Fairly After He Filed His Complaint?
1. Conditions for Filing and Duty to Complain
2. Disclosure by Warrant Officer Hamm of his Concerns to the Chain of Command
3. Warrant Officer Hamm's Counselling
6. Was Corporal Hamm Treated Fairly After Warrant Officer Hamm Filed His Complaint?
1. Reason for Corporal Hamm's Suspension
2. Identification of Contradictory Reason for the Suspension of Corporal Hamm's Credentials
5. Summary of the Commission Members' Interim Findings
6. Summary of the Commission Members' Interim Recommendations
7. Interim Report Conclusion

Volume II: Canadian Forces Provost Marshal's Notice of Action

Volume III: Final Report

Final Executive Summary
1. Background
2. The Complaints
3. Issues
4. The Public Interest Investigation and Report
5. Summary of the Commission Members' Final Findings
6. Summary of the Commission Members' Final Recommendations
8. Review of Chairperson's Interim Report
9. Commission Members' Findings and Recommendations Having Considered the Notice of Action from the Provost Marshal
1. Civilian Oversight and the Purpose of the Notice of Action
2. Background of Complaints
3. Powers of Arrest under the National Defence Act and the Jurisdiction of the Complaints Commission in this case
4. Public Interest Component
5. Hearing versus Investigation
6. Refusal by Witnesses to be Interviewed and Treatment of Witnesses
7. Provost Marshal's Allegation that the Complaints Commission Refused to Provide Witness Statements
8. Credibility Findings Challenged by the Provost Marshal
9. Insubordination
10. Recall to Duty
11. Section 10(a) of the Charter and Corporal Hamm's Right to be Informed of the Reason for his Arrest
12. Superior Orders and the Arrest of Corporal Hamm
13. Abuse of Authority
14. Privacy Act comments by the Provost Marshal
15. Master Corporal Paul's notes
16. Findings surrounding Chief Warrant Officer Gauvin
17. Right of Complainants and Subject Members Concerning Classification of Complaints
18. Warrant Officer Hamm and Corporal Hamm as Subjects of Complaints
19. Deputy Provost Marshal Professional Standards' Conclusions
20. Warrant Officer Hamm's treatment by the Deputy Provost Marshal Professional Standards
21. Corporal Hamm's treatment by the Deputy Provost Marshal Professional Standards & Review of Police Credentials
22. Misleading the Investigator
23. Recommendations
10. Commission Members' Conclusion
11. Summary of Commission Members' Final Findings
12. Summary of Commission Members' Final Recommendations