TABLE OF CONTENTS

• Military Police
• Complaints
  • Conduct Complaints
  • Interference Complaints
• Filing Complaints
  • Time Limit
  • Submission
  • Follow-up
  • Withdrawal
• The Canadian Forces Provost Marshal
  • Procedure — Conduct Complaints
  • Informal Resolution
  • Investigation
• The Chairperson
  • Review of Conduct Complaints
  • Oversight of the Canadian Forces Provost Marshal’s Complaints Handling Process
  • Procedure — Interference Complaints
  • Commission Investigation and Public Hearing
  • Reports
    • Interim Report
    • Final Report

PART I
THE COMPLAINTS PROCESS

MILITARY POLICE

There are about 1200 military police members of the Canadian Forces. Of these, 110 form the Canadian Forces National Investigation Service.

Members of the Canadian Forces National Investigation Service investigate serious criminal or military offences. They also conduct “sensitive”investigations — those involving a senior officer or a civilian employee of the Department of National Defence in an equivalent senior position. Investigations involving certain types of property (for example,computer equipment) are also treated as sensitive.

Military police hold the status of peace officers and have jurisdiction over all persons subject to the Code of Service Discipline throughout Canada and abroad wherever the Canadian Forces are stationed or deployed. They also have jurisdiction over all persons, including civilians, on or in Department of National Defence property. Military police therefore have jurisdiction over members of the general public on military bases.

COMPLAINTS

The Commission Chairperson may bring to the attention of the Provost Marshal circumstances involving the conduct of the military police and ask the Provost Marshal to investigate.

The Complaints About the Conduct of Members of the Military Police Regulations are set out in Annex F. Interference Complaints

Any member of the military police who conducts or supervises an investigation, may make a complaint about an officer, non-commissioned member or senior official of the Department of National Defence who, through intimidation, abuse of authority or otherwise, has interfered with the investigation.

Any member of the military police who conducts or supervises an investigation may make a complaint about an officer, non-commissioned member or senior official of the Department of National Defence who, through intimidation, abuse of authority or otherwise, has interfered with the investigation.The Commission has sole jurisdiction to deal with interference complaints.

FILING COMPLAINTS

No complaint may be made more than one year after the event giving rise to the complaint. However, in certain cases, the Chairperson may extend this time at the request of the complainant.

The Commission has no jurisdiction over complaints involving incidents that occurred before December 1, 1999, the date the Commission was established. Any such complaints received during the year 2001 were handled by the Provost Marshal according to the procedures in place in the Canadian Forces before December 1, 1999. Still, the Commission may examine events that occurred before December 1, 1999, to help it understand the complaints it investigates.

Submission

A conduct or interference complaint may be made either orally or in writing to the Commission Chairperson,the Judge Advocate General or the Provost Marshal. A conduct complaint may also be made to any member of the military police.

Follow-up

The complainant receives an acknowledgement of receipt of his or her complaint. The subject of the complaint is advised of its content, unless this might adversely affect or hinder the investigation. Following this, both are periodically advised of the progress of the case until it is resolved.

Withdrawal

A complainant may withdraw a complaint by sending a written notice to the Chairperson.However,the Chairperson may choose to conduct an investigation despite a notice for withdrawal.

THE CANADIAN FORCES PROVOST MARSHAL

The functions of the Provost Marshal are in many respects comparable to those of the Chief of a civilian police force. The Provost Marshal delegates some of her duties to her deputies — for example, the Deputy Provost Marshal, Professional Standards.

The Deputy Provost Marshal, Professional Standards is responsible for initially examining complaints about the conduct of military police members, investigating breaches in professional standards and managing the process for dealing with conduct complaints on behalf of the Provost Marshal.

Procedure — Conduct Complaints

Except where the Chairperson decides to intervene in the public interest,the Provost Marshal is responsible for handling the initial stages of conduct complaints. Upon receiving a conduct complaint, the Provost Marshal acknowledges receipt to the complainant, advises the military police member who is the subject of the complaint of its substance (circumstances permitting) and advises the Commission Chairperson. The Chairperson must be kept informed throughout the process to be able to closely monitor the handling of the complaint.

Informal Resolution

The Provost Marshal may attempt to resolve a complaint informally after obtaining the consent of the parties involved. However, certain categories of complaints cannot be resolved informally. These categories are identified in the regulations set out in Annex F.

Investigation

The Act contains a number of provisions allowing the Chairperson to attentively monitor every step in the handling of conduct complaints by the Provost Marshal and to intervene as required.

If the complaint is not resolved informally, the Provost Marshal may decide to investigate, end an investigation in progress or refuse to conduct an investigation for one of the reasons outlined in the Act, most notably if the complaint is frivolous, vexatious or made in bad faith.

If the Provost Marshal investigates, a report containing the following is sent to the complainant, the military police member who is the subject of the complaint and the Chairperson:

• a summary of the complaint;
• the findings of the investigation;
• a summary of any action that has been or will be taken with respect to disposition of the complaint; and
• a notice of the right of the complainant to refer the complaint to the Commission for review, if not satisfied with the disposition of the complaint.

The Provost Marshal must maintain a file of all complaints received and, on request, must send all information contained in the file to the Commission. This is necessary for the Commission to perform its monitoring role.

THE CHAIRPERSON

A complainant,who is dissatisfied with a direction by the Provost Marshal to refuse or end informal resolution or an investigation, or the disposition of the conduct complaint as indicated in an investigation report, may request that the Commission review the complaint. In this case, the Provost Marshal shall provide the Chairperson will all information and materials relevant to the complaint.

A complainant, who is dissatisfied with a direction by the Provost Marshal to refuse or end informal resolution or an investigation, or the disposition of the conduct complaint as indicated in an investigation report, may request that the Commission review the complaint.

It should be noted that the Act contains no provision limiting the time a complainant may wait before requesting a complaint be reviewed.

After reviewing the complaint, the Chairperson may:

• decide that the Provost Marshal handled the complaint in a suitable manner;
• be satisfied with the investigation conducted by the Provost Marshal but disagree with the findings reached. In this case, the Chairperson may make her own recommendations;
• conduct her own investigation if she is not satisfied with the investigation conducted by the Provost Marshal. If her findings differ from those of the Provost Marshal, the Chairperson will make her own recommendations.

Oversight of the Canadian Forces Provost Marshal’s Complaints Handling Process

The Act contains a number of provisions allowing the Chairperson to attentively monitor every step in the handling of conduct complaints by the Provost Marshal and to intervene as required.

Procedure — Interference Complaints

The Chairperson has the exclusive authority to deal with interference complaints. She may refuse to conduct an investigation or she may end an investigation already under way for any of the reasons outlined in the Act, including if the complaint is frivolous, vexatious or made in bad faith. Her decision to refuse to conduct an investigation is final.

Commission Investigation and Public Hearing

SIf she considers it advisable in the public interest,the Chairperson may, at any point in the handling of a conduct or interference complaint,cause the Commission to conduct an investigation and, if circumstances warrant, hold a public hearing into a complaint.

The Chairperson may, at any point in the handling of a conduct or interference complaint, cause the Commission to conduct an investigation and, if circumstances warrant, hold a public hearing into a complaint.

Such a decision by the Chairperson suspends the handling of the complaint by the Provost Marshal. In turn,any disciplinary or criminal proceeding before a court or tribunal of first instance that relates to the same conduct prompts the suspension of all public hearings of the Commission until the proceedings are completed.

Reports

Each request for review by the Chairperson and each Commission investigation or hearing leads to two reports — Interim and Final.

Interim Report

The interim report states the Chairperson’s findings and recommendations, or those of the Commission if a hearing has been held.

The interim report is normally sent to the Minister, the Chief of the Defence Staff or Deputy Minister, depending on whether the subject of the complaint is a member of the military or a senior departmental official, the Provost Marshal and the Judge Advocate General.

The interim report is normally reviewed by the Chief of the Defence Staff or the Provost Marshal, depending on whether the complaint concerns interference or conduct. However, they do not review the interim report if they themselves are subjects of the complaint.

The person who reviews the interim report notifies the Minister and the Commission Chairperson in a “notice of action” of any action taken or intended to be taken about the complaint. This person is not bound by the findings and recommendations set out in the Chairperson’s interim report, but must justify in the notice the reasons for not acting on these findings or recommendations.

Final Report After considering the notice received from the person who reviewed the interim report, the Chairperson prepares a final report with her findings and recommendations.The Chairperson is not bound by the content of the notice she receives. However, she considers this a key step in the process, since it allows her to obtain the opinion of experts in military issues.

The final report is sent to:

• the Minister;
• the Deputy Minister;
• the Chief of the Defence Staff;
• the Judge Advocate General;
• the Provost Marshal;
• the complainant;
• the person who is the subject of the complaint;
• all persons who have satisfied the Commission that they have a substantial and direct interest in the complaint.
  The chart explaining the process for handling complaints is set out in Annex G.

THE SHIELD

THE THREE LIONS IN THE FIRST QUARTER REPRESENT THE TIES TO ENGLAND, THEY COULD POSSIBLY DATE BACK TO KING RICHARD I, “THE LION-HEARTED”, WHO CARRIED WITH HIM, DURING THE CRUSADES, A SHIELD WITH THREE GOLD LIONS ON A RED BACKGROUND. THE SECOND QUARTER CONTAINS THE ROYAL LION OF SCOTLAND, IN IT WE CAN SEE A RED LION REARING UP ON IT’S LEFT FOOT, CONTAINED IN A RED DOUBLE BORDER WITH FLEURS-DE-LIS ON THE CORNERS AND CENTRE OUTSIDE OF THE BORDER, THIS EMBLEM WAS USED BY ALEXANDER III WHO CREATED THE INDEPENDENT NATION OF SCOTLAND. THE GOLDEN HARP WITH WHITE STRINGS IS THE ROYAL IRISH HARP OF TARA, HENRY VIII, AFTER HIS VICTORY IN IRELAND HAD THE POPE SEND THE HARP OF TARA TO ENGLAND WHERE HE HAD IT’S LIKENESS EMBLAZONED ON HIS ROYAL SHIELD, IT REMAINS THE SYMBOL OF IRELAND. ON JULY 24, 1534, JACQUES CARTIER LANDED AT GASPE, ERECTED A CROSS AND CLAIMED CANADA FOR FRANCE, THIS SYMBOL OF THE ROYAL FLEURS-DE-LIS OF FRANCE WAS ENGRAVED IN THAT CROSS AND REPRESENTS THE FIRST HERALDIC SYMBOL RAISED IN CANADA. THE THREE MAPLE LEAVES ARE A GENUINELY CANADIAN SYMBOL AND WERE PUT INTO THE SHIELD TO ENSURE THAT THE COAT OF ARMS WAS UNMISTAKABLY CANADIAN.