TABLE OF CONTENTS

• Conduct Complaints
• Requests for Review of Conduct Complaints
  • Conduct Cases:
    1. Alleged Refusal to Investigate
    2. Alleged Unlawful Detention
    3. Jurisdiction of Military Police
• Interference Complaints
  • Interference Case:
    • Alleged Interference with a Police Investigation
• Investigations in the Public Interest
  • Public Interest Case:
    • Samson/Stopford Matter
• Withdrawal of Complaint
• Reports by the Chairperson

PART II - OPERATIONS

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.

Beyond general enquiries, the correspondence that fell within the Commission’s mandate was divided into one of the following five categories: conduct complaints; requests for review; interference complaints; investigations in the public interest; and, withdrawal of complaints.

CONDUCT COMPLAINTS

The chart on page 16 illustrates both the policing duties and functions described in the Complaints About the Conduct of Members of the Military Police Regulations and the number of specific policing duties or functions addressed by the 64 conduct complaints. Note that more than one policing duty or function can be included in a single conduct complaint. For this reason, the 64 conduct complaints encompassed a total of 98 allegations of misconduct concerning policing duties or functions.

Allegations of misconduct by policing duties and functions:98

1. The conduct of an investigation(45)
2. The rendering of assistance to the public(6)
3. The execution of a warrant or another judicial process(6)
4. The handling of evidence(2)
5. The laying of a charge(3)
6. Attendance at a judicial proceeding(1)
7. The enforcement of laws(15)
8. Responding to a complaint(8)
9. The arrest or custody of a person(12)

REQUESTS FOR REVIEW OF CONDUCT COMPLAINTS

Several reviews of conduct complaints were not completed as of December 31, 2001, and are therefore not reported in detail here. In some cases, the Chairperson has made an interim report containing her findings and recommendations. However, it would be inappropriate to provide these specific findings and recommendations until the Chairperson reviews the response — in the form of a notice of action — from the Chief of the Defence Staff or Provost Marshal and prepares a final report.

Request for review of conduct complaints cover a range of issues, including:

• alleged negligence;
• alleged abuse of authority;
• alleged unprofessional behaviour;
• alleged failure by military police to investigate thoroughly;
• alleged harassment by military police;
• alleged unlawful detention and arrest;
• lthe appropriate circumstances for the Provost Marshal to refuse to investigate a conduct complaint;
• the mandate and jurisdiction of military police in cases involving civilians.

Case Summaries

The Provost Marshal should establish a higher threshold for determining a conduct complaint to be frivolous, vexatious or made in bad faith. These terms must be used with caution and reserved for those rare cases that are truly lacking in substance, have insufficient grounds for any action and seek only to annoy.

a. Alleged Refusal to Investigate

The Commission received a complaint that a military police member refused to investigate allegations of perjury. The Deputy Provost Marshal, Professional Standards decided not to conduct an investigation, citing section 250.28(2)(a) of the Act. That section permits the Provost Marshal to direct that no investigation of a conduct complaint occur if she is of the opinion that the complaint is frivolous, vexatious or made in bad faith.

The Chairperson concluded that the conduct of the military police member was appropriate, since the elements needed to investigate an offence of perjury were not present. However, the Chairperson also concluded that the complainant should have been given a more complete explanation of past investigative activity by the military police and a description of the elements of the offence of perjury.

The Chairperson recommended that when a military police investigation is terminated, the complainant should be informed in a timely manner and should also be told the reason(s) for its termination. As well, the Provost Marshal should establish a higher threshold for determining a conduct complaint to be frivolous, vexatious or made in bad faith. These terms must be used with caution and reserved for those rare cases that are truly lacking in substance,have insufficient grounds for any action and seek only to annoy. These recommendations were well received by the Provost Marshal who responded in her notice of action: “The Canadian Forces Provost Marshal embraces the findings and recommendations presented in …[the Chairperson’s] interim report…”

b. Alleged Unlawful Detention

A Canadian Forces member submitted a conduct complaint containing multiple allegations against a member of the military police. The complainant alleged:

• that he was unlawfully arrested;
• that he was unlawfully detained;
• that he was not told the details of the offence until he asked for particulars;
• that he was told he was charged with an offence when he had not been charged; and
• that he was badgered to confess to a prior incident that he did not commit.

A Professional Standards investigator investigated three allegations contained in the conduct complaint on behalf of the Provost Marshal. The Deputy Provost Marshal, Professional Standards sent the complainant a final letter that concluded that two out of three of the complainant’s allegations were not supported.

The complainant requested a review by the Commission. On completion of her review in November 2001,the Chairperson sent her interim report to the Minister of National Defence, the Chief of the Defence Staff and the Provost Marshal. As of December 31, 2001, the Chairperson was awaiting a notice of action in response.

c. Jurisdiction of Military Police

A military police member received a complaint from a woman who alleged that her former father-in-law would not return her children’s legal documents, thus violating a civil separation agreement between her and her spouse. The military police member contacted the father-in-law to request that he return the documents. The father-in-law complained to the Commission, arguing that the military police did not have the authority to contact him to demand the return of the documents. He further argued that since both he and his daughter-in-law were civilians, the military police should not have become involved. The Chairperson issued an interim report in December 2001 and was awaiting a response as of year end.

INTERFERENCE COMPLAINTS

Case Summary

The Chairperson has the exclusive authority to deal with interference complaints.

Alleged Interference with a Police Investigation

A member of the military police complained that the Commander of a regiment had interfered in one of his police investigations by proceeding with a search and seizure in a military residence against his wishes.The complainant alleged that the Commander’s actions alerted the members of the regiment that the military police were conducting an investigation. This, the complainant said, could be a key factor in the investigation and could even cause it to fail.

The Chairperson submitted an interim report in April 2001 to the Minister, the Chief of the Defence Staff, the Judge Advocate General and the Provost Marshal.The Chairperson recommended resolving the complaint informally. In his notice of action, the former Chief of the Defence Staff, General Maurice Baril, agreed to that proposition from the Chairperson. The parties also agreed to attempt to resolve the complaint informally. The parties reached a mutual understanding of the circumstances surrounding the incident and thus put an end to the complaint.

Although the complaint was considered resolved,discussion between the parties at the conciliation session raised certain systemic issues which required comment.The Chairperson made use of her final report to give her observations to the Chief of the Defence Staff. Among her observations were the following:

Senior officials of the military police and the Canadian Forces should take advantage of the various fora available to them to raise awareness among military personnel about the distinct functions performed by the military police.

• Inspections may lead to abusive entry and a breach of privacy rights.They may also jeopardize ensuing administrative measures or criminal proceedings.The team assigned to conduct an inspection would benefit from the inclusion of a person with the authority and training to make appropriate on-the-spot decisions, as required. Ideally, this person would be the regimental sergeant-major.
• Senior officials of the military police and the Canadian Forces should take advantage of the various fora available to them to raise awareness among military personnel about the distinct functions performed by the military police. Such information would contribute greatly to harmonizing military police practices with those of other Canadian police forces.
• Common practice dictates that unit commanders be advised of a police investigation involving their unit, unless this would jeopardize the investigation. It is not in the best interests of unit commanders to intervene in a police investigation.
• A commanding officer has great discretion in deciding whether to call on the military police.However, some situations may involve a degree of difficulty that demands police expertise.

INVESTIGATIONS IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST

Beyond the 64 conduct complaints that could be treated by the Provost Marshal, the Chairperson decided under section 250.38(1) of the National Defence Act that two other conduct complaints were public interest complaints.

The Chairperson issued a final report in January 2001 on one public interest investigation — that relating to the Samson/Stopford matter. The Commission conducted a second major public interest investigation in 2001, but since the investigation is still ongoing, it is not described here.

Case Summary
Samson/Stopford Matter

Following a complaint from Brigadier-General Patricia Samson, then the Canadian Forces Provost Marshal, and a complaint from ex-Warrant Officer Matthew Stopford, the Commission investigated whether the Canadian Forces National Investigation Service had misled the Chief of the Defence Staff and the Canadian public. Specifically, had they been misled about the possibility of laying charges against soldiers who had allegedly poisoned ex-Warrant Officer Stopford in Croatia in 1993.

The main issues examined by the Commission were as follows:

• Did the Canadian Forces National Investigation Service provide inaccurate or inadequate and misleading advice to the Chief of the Defence Staff and the Canadian public, among other occasions, during a press conference held on May 30, 2000, with regard to the possibility of laying charges pursuant to the Criminal Code and the National Defence Act?
• Did the Canadian Forces National Investigation Service provide misleading information to ex-Warrant Officer Matthew Stopford with respect to the “confessions” collected during the Canadian Forces National Investigation Service investigation?
• When did the military police and the chain of command become aware of the allegations that ex-Warrant Officer Stopford was poisoned in Croatia in 1993?

The Chairperson released her final report in January 2001. The conclusions differed substantially from those reached earlier by the Special Review Group established by the Chief of the Defence Staff to examine much the same issues, largely because the Commission had a more extensive body of evidence before it. Following the Commission’s investigation, the Chairperson concluded:

I am particularly proud to report that the Chief of the Defence Staff and the Canadian Forces Provost Marshal have accepted all the findings and recommendations that the Commission has submitted to them in its reports to date.

• There was no misconduct by Brigadier-General Patricia Samson, the Canadian Forces National Investigation Service or the military police members whose conduct the Commission investigated. Furthermore, the Canadian Forces National Investigation Service did not mislead, intentionally or otherwise, the Chief of the Defence Staff or the Canadian public about the nature of the legal advice on which the Canadian Forces National Investigation Service relied in reaching its decision not to proceed with Criminal Code and National Defence Act charges;
• There were minor inadequacies in the information delivered by the Canadian Forces National Investigation Service at a May 30, 2000, news conference where the decision not to lay charges was announced. However, these inadequacies were not significant and did not have a bearing on the allegations of providing inaccurate, inadequate or misleading advice;
• There was confusion over the interpretation of the word “confessions” and that there was no intent on the part of the Canadian Forces National Investigation Service to mislead ex-Warrant Officer Stopford;
• Concerning whether and when the military police and the chain of command became aware of the poisoning allegations, the Commission’s investigation found that this was adequately reflected in the Canadian Forces National Investigation Service news conference.The main point — that there was some evidence to suggest that the chain of command in Croatia was aware of the poisoning allegations — was reported by the Canadian Forces National Investigation Service.

WITHDRAWAL OF COMPLAINT

REPORTS BY THE CHAIRPERSON

The Chairperson continues to work on other interim reports from complaints generated in 2001. The Provost Marshal’s notices of action responding to three interim reports in her possession remained outstanding at the end of the year. However, these interim reports were provided to the Provost Marshal only shortly before the end of the year.

THE MOTTO AND RIBBON

THE MOTTO, “A MARI USQUE AD MARE” IS BASED ON PSALM 72:8, “HE SHALL HAVE DOMINION FROM SEA TO SEA AND FROM THE RIVER UNTO THE ENDS OF THE EARTH.” IT WAS FIRST USED IN 1906 IN THE NEW LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF SASKATCHEWAN, CARVED ONTO THE HEAD OF THEIR MACE. SIR JOSEPH POPE, UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE FIRST PROPOSED THE MOTTO, BEING IMPRESSED BY IT’S MEANING. LATER, ON APRIL 21, 1921, THE ORDER IN COUNCIL PROPOSED THE MOTTO FOR THE NEW COAT OF ARMS, AND IT WAS FINALLY CONFIRMED BY ROYAL PROCLAMATION ON NOVEMBER 21, 1921. FOLLOWING THE ADVICE OF THE PRIME MINISTER OF CANADA, HRH QUEEN ELIZABETH II APPROVED THE ADDITION OF A RIBBON TO THE ROYAL ARMS. THE MOTTO IS THAT OF THE ORDER OF CANADA, “DESIDERANTES MELIOREM PATRIAM” (THEY DESIRE A BETTER COUNTRY). THE AUGMENTATION OF THE RIBBON WAS SUGGESTED BY MR. BRUCE HICKS, OF OTTAWA, AND WAS APPROVED ON JULY 12, 1994.