Table of Contents

• Findings Relating to Individuals
• Findings Relating to Specific Issues

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

Subsection 250.49(2) and section 250.51 of the NDA require the CDS to review the interim report in light of its findings and recommendations and to notify in writing both the Minister and the Chairperson of any action that has been or will be taken with respect to the complaints.

On December 14, 2000, the Chairperson of the MPCC received from the CDS his notice of action dated December 12, 2000. This notice was considered by the Chairperson prior to the preparation of this final report.

In his notice of action dated December 12, 2000, the CDS, though comforted by the conclusion that there was no misconduct by the CFPM or the CFNIS members and reassured by the finding that neither he nor the Canadian public had been misled, was nevertheless cognizant of the need to address several issues raised.

The CDS stated, in part:

The CDS goes on to state:

The Chairperson looks forward to being informed of the specific measures to be adopted following the examination of this report by the CFPM. Among the items of interest will be the measures taken in relation to the briefing of persons affected by a military police investigation and the introduction of consistent procedures for the recording of interviews by the military police (regardless of the rank of the person being interviewed).

Finally, with reference to the request by the CDS to have the CFNIS investigation report referred to the appropriate provincial prosecutorial authority, the Chairperson is informed in the notice from the CDS that the Office of the Assistant Deputy Attorney General – Criminal Law for Ontario does not disagree with the CFNIS decision not to lay a charge.

Following the investigation by the MPCC, and after having considered the notice of action from the CDS, the Chairperson upholds her interim report conclusions and reiterates them as follows:

Findings Relating to Individuals

• There was no misconduct by BGen Patricia Samson, CFPM, the CFNIS or the military police members whose conduct the MPCC has investigated.

Findings Relating to Specific Issues

Did the Canadian Forces National Investigation Service (CFNIS) provide inaccurate or inadequate and misleading advice to the Chief of the Defence Staff and the Canadian public, among other occasions, during the 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?

• The CFNIS did not mislead, intentionally or otherwise, the CDS or the Canadian public about the nature of the legal advice on which the CFNIS relied in reaching its decision not to proceed with Criminal Code and National Defence Act charges.

• A review of the evidence did reveal minor inadequacies in the information provided at the CFNIS press conference on May 30, 2000. However, none of these were of any significance in the discussion of whether the CFNIS had provided inaccurate or inadequate and misleading advice with regard to the laying of criminal charges.

The Chairperson concludes as follows about statements relating to confessions:

• that Insp Grabb reported at the May 30, 2000, press conference that:
  • the task force did 12 cautioned interviews of soldiers who were under investigation;
  • “many” of the soldiers who were involved, confessed not only to fellow soldiers but to police during the investigation;
  • approximately six soldiers were directly involved in committing an offence that would have been prosecuted under section 129 of the National Defence Act if the three-year limitation period had not expired;
• The PowerPoint presentation at the May 30, 2000, press conference did not mention “confessions”, but stated rather that, “some Roto 2 soldiers made incriminating and admissible statements to fellow soldiers and to police;”
• A CFNIS investigator who met with ex-WO Stopford on May 30, 2000, may have said that five or six people confessed to allegations of coffee tampering. However, it is not known whether the investigator mistakenly referred to “written” confessions during the discussion.
• Varying interpretations of what was meant by the word “confession” led to confusion and, perhaps, the perception on the part of ex-WO Stopford that he had been given misleading information. There was no intent on the part of the CFNIS to mislead.
• A CFNIS investigator more familiar with this investigation should have been sent to brief ex-WO Stopford.

When did the military police and the chain of command become aware of the allegations that ex-WO Stopford was poisoned in Croatia in 1993?

• Upon reviewing the CFNIS investigation report and all pertinent documents in its possession and after interviewing 11 individuals, the Chairperson concludes that the comments made at the CFNIS press conference on May 30, 2000 adequately reflected whether and when the military police and chain of command were made aware of the coffee tampering allegations.

Ottawa, January 17, 2001

- ORIGINAL SIGNED BY -

Louise Cobetto,
Chairperson