The arms of Canada
Military Police complaints Commission of CanadaCommission d'examen des plaintes concernant la police militaire du CanadaCanada
Skip headings and go to the navigation of this page Skip headings and navigation and go to the content of the page
FranÇais Contact us Help Search Canada Site
Home What's new Frenquently Asked Questions Site Map
Canadian Coat of Arms
Publications

About The Complaints Commission
Media Room
Publications
Complaints
Proactive Disclosure
Staffing
Links
Archives

Make a complaint

Bill C-7
 spacer

Military Police Complaints Commission

National Defence Act – Part IV Section 250.53

CHAIRPERSON’S FINAL REPORT

CFollowing a Public Interest Investigation
Pursuant to Subsection 250.38(1) of the National Defence Act
With Respect to the Complaints of
Brigadier-General Patricia Samson
gCanadian Forces Provost Marshal
And
Ex-Warrant Officer Matthew Stopford

CAVEAT
Portions of this document have been edited pursuant to the Privacy Act.

Files: MPCC 2000-023
MPCC 2000-025

Ottawa, January 17, 2001

Louise Cobetto
Chairperson

Table of Contents

Acronyms

Executive Summary

  1. Background
  2. Issues
  3. Chairperson’s Findings Subsequent to the Investigation
  4. Chairperson's Findings Having Considered the Notice of Action from the CDS
I: The Complaints

II: Military Police Complaints Commission

  1. Scope of the Investigation
  2. Methodology
    1. Documentation Review
    2. Designated Members
    3. Persons Interviewed
    4. Counsel
    5. Legal Framework of Investigation
III: Facts
  1. The Allegations of Coffee Tampering
  2. CFNIS Task Force Investigation
  3. Report of the CFNIS Task Force
    1. May 30, 2000 CFNIS Press Conference
    2. Response of the Minister of National Defence
    3. Response of the Chief of the Defence Staff
  4. The Special Review Group
  5. Report of the SRG
    1. Concerns Expressed to the SRG
    2. June 20, 2000 SRG Press Conference
    3. Response of the Chief of the Defence Staff
    4. Response of the Minister of National Defence
    5. Response of the Canadian Forces Provost Marshal
  6. June 29, 2000 Press Conference of Ex-WO Stopford
IV: Analysis of the Evidence

Question 1 – « Inaccurate or inadequate and misleading »

  1. “Misleading”
    1. (i) The Legal Opinion of May 18, 2000
    2. (ii) Verbal Advice Provided to CFNIS Task Force
    3. (iii) The SRG Report
    4. Lack of Knowledge by the CFPM about the Scope of the SRG Mandate
  2. "Inaccurate or Inadequate"
    1. Legal Test for Laying Charges
    2. Failure to Mention Involvement of a Military Lawyer
    3. Analysis by the SRG Regarding the Authority to Lay Charges
    4. Criticism by SRG of Apparent Failure by CFNIS to Consider Criminal Charge for "Attempt"
Issue 2 – Information Provided to Ex-WO Stopford
  1. Background
  2. May 30, 2000 CFNIS Press Conference PowerPoint Presentation
  3. May 30, 2000 Visit to Ex-WO Stopford by a CFNIS Investigator
  4. Communications Between Ex-WO Stopford and BGen Sharpe
  5. Varying Definitions of “Confession”
Issue 3 – Knowledge by the Military Police and the Chain of Command in Croatia of Coffee Tampering Allegations

V: Chairperson’s Findings Subsequent to the Investigation

VI: Chairperson’s Findings Having Considered the Notice of Action from the CDS

Annex A: Comparison of Statements in May 18 Legal Opinion, May 25 Memorandum of Provost Marshal, and May 30 CFNIS PowerPoint Presentation

Download the PDF version (249 KB)
Last updated:  2003-12-21 Return to top of the pageImportant Notices