CASE SUMMARIES

Public interest investigation initiated in 2004

After considering a number of issues arising from conduct complaints filed by the parents of two young persons, the Chairperson determined it would be in the public interest for the Complaints Commission to investigate these complaints.

This new public interest investigation - the fourth since the inception of the Complaints Commission - will examine a number of important issues related to military police policy and procedures, including the role of military police in conducting investigations involving young persons; whether military police have in place consistent and well-understood policies related to the detention, questioning and search of young persons; and whether policies and procedures that are in place are in keeping with the requirements of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Youth Criminal Justice Act.

Case No. 1 - Public interest investigation concluded in 2004

Facts and complaint

In December of 2000, a member of the military police was at home on sick leave when his supervisor contacted him by telephone to advise him that he should start preparations for a deployment scheduled to begin within the coming three weeks. The member's sick leave pass was due to expire shortly, and the supervisor was acting on the assumption that the member would be back at work prior to the beginning of the planned deployment. The conversation became heated, ending with the military police member hanging up on his supervisor, and leaving the supervisor with the impression that the member had refused to accept the deployment, and had been insubordinate.

The supervisor subsequently ordered two other members of the military police to go to the first member's home, and direct him to report to the guardhouse. If he refused, the members were instructed to arrest him.

When the two members arrived at his residence, they advised him of the order to report to the guardhouse. The member pointed out that he was on sick leave, and thus could not be recalled to duty. The member called his doctor (a member of the Canadian Forces), who also advised one of the two MPs that a member on sick leave was not required to report for duty.

The military police member said that unless the doctor could provide a specific authority (i.e., point to a particular regulation) to support the member's refusal to report to the guardhouse, the member would be arrested.

The doctor was not able to do so in the few moments allowed; the member continued to refuse to report to the guardhouse, and he was arrested and read his rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Once at the guardhouse, the member was brought before his supervisor. This discussion too became heated. The arrested member more than once refused his supervisor's orders to come to attention, stating that he was under arrest and wanted to speak to a lawyer. The arrested member walked out of the meeting and went to an interview room at the guardhouse, where he remained, under guard, for some two hours.

During this time, the member tried unsuccessfully to reach legal counsel, and eventually contacted his brother - also a member of the military police - at another Canadian Forces Base. The member informed his brother of his situation, suggesting he had been arrested for no reason. The brother also spoke with the military police member who had carried out the arrest, and this military police member agreed with the brother's suggestion that the arrest had been unlawful.

Also during this time, the arrested member's doctor spoke with the member's supervisor, and advised him of the nature of the member's sick leave.

Shortly afterward, the arrested member's supervisor briefed his own superior on the situation, and the arrested member was brought to the senior member's office. At this meeting, the supervisor offered an apology to the arrested member, saying that had he known the nature of the member's sick leave, he would not have considered the member for the deployment in the first place. The senior member present then released the arrested member from custody, and the member was driven back to his residence by another military police member.

Meanwhile, concerned about his sibling's welfare and that he may have been arrested unlawfully, the arrested member's brother consulted his own supervisor and, on the supervisor's advice, another member of the military police at another Base.

This military police member, believing the information provided by the arrested member's brother suggested a possible breach of the Military Police Professional Code of Conduct, forwarded the information to the Deputy Provost Marshal Professional Standards. At the same time, acting independently, the brother of the arrested member submitted a formal complaint about the conduct of the military police members involved in the incident to the Deputy Provost Marshal Professional Standards, stressing that the information he was providing was third hand, having been received from his brother.

Disposition by the Canadian Forces Provost Marshal

In response to the complaint filed by the brother of the arrested member and the information received from the senior military police member consulted by the arrested member's brother, the Deputy Provost Marshal Professional Standards initiated a Professional Standards "internal" investigation into the complaint. This investigation named four members of the military police as subjects: the senior member who released the arrested member from custody, the arrested member's supervisor, and the two military police members who made the arrest.

Before the Professional Standards investigation began, the Canadian Forces National Investigation Service started a separate investigation to determine whether the information in the conduct complaint disclosed the commission of a criminal or service offence by any members of the military police. As is required, the Professional Standards investigation was put on hold until the Canadian Forces National Investigation Service investigation was completed.

The Canadian Forces National Investigation Service investigation

The Canadian Forces National Investigation Service investigation looked at two issues: whether service or criminal offences had been committed in relation to the alleged unlawful arrest in December of 2000, and whether the more senior military police member who released the member from custody had improperly coached a witness who testified at an earlier trial in which the member arrested in this case was the defendant. The latter issue arose from underlying allegations in the complaint filed by the arrested member's brother, suggesting the arrested member may have been for some time the victim of some degree of harassment by his superiors.

This investigation concluded in early July 2001, that there was no evidence to support the allegation that the senior military police member had improperly coached the witness. It also found that the two military police members who arrested the member had reasonable grounds to believe the member's refusal to accompany them to the guardhouse constituted a service offence, and made the arrest in good faith. No further action was recommended against them.

In the case of the arrested member's supervisor, the investigation determined that the arrested member had been recalled to duty contrary to section 16.01 of the Queen's Regulations and Orders for the Canadian Forces. This section sets out the specific conditions and circumstances under which a member of the Canadian Forces on sick leave can be recalled to duty. The supervising military police member was subsequently charged with the service offence of Neglect to the Prejudice of Good Order and Discipline, under the National Defence Act. His military police credentials were suspended for a period of some 10 months, until he was found not guilty of the charge at trial.

In early August of 2001, about a month after the Canadian Forces National Investigation Service investigation finished, a senior officer in the military police wrote to the Deputy Provost Marshal National Investigation Service, expressing his unhappiness with the conclusions of the Canadian Forces National Investigation Service investigation. This officer alleged the military police member arrested back in December 2000 had committed a number of service offences in the course of that day's events, and asked the Canadian Forces National Investigation Service to start a new investigation to look into these allegations.

A few weeks later, the Officer Commanding the Canadian Forces National Investigation Service Sensitive Investigation Detachment replied to the officer's letter, denying the request for a new investigation. The letter of response also disputed the officer's suggestion the initial Canadian Forces National Investigation Service investigation was deficient in any way, and stated that all investigative materials would be forwarded to the Complaints Commission for an unbiased review.

The Canadian Forces National Investigation Service investigative materials arrived at the Complaints Commission a few days later, accompanied by a letter from the Officer Commanding the Canadian Forces National Investigation Service Sensitive Investigation Detachment requesting a complete review of the complaint, the Canadian Forces National Investigation Service investigation, and issues related to the findings of the investigation.

It should be noted that this was the first time the Complaints Commission had heard of the conduct complaint filed by the arrested member's brother almost nine months earlier. The National Defence Act requires that the person who receives a complaint must "ensure that notice of the complaint is sent as soon as practicable...to the Chairperson" of the Complaints Commission.

In response to a subsequent inquiry from the Chairperson regarding the classification of the initial complaint as "internal," and the lack of notice to the Chairperson, the Deputy Provost Marshal Professional Standards stated that the classification of the complaint as "internal" and the failure to provide notice of the complaint were the result of an oversight.

The Deputy Provost Marshal Professional Standards investigation

The Professional Standards investigation resumed upon the completion of the Canadian Forces National Investigation Service investigation, and concluded in February of 2002. This investigation found no evidence to support any of the allegations against any of the four members named as subjects of the complaint. The Deputy Provost Marshal Professional Standards did note some of the actions by certain military police members were of concern and follow-up actions were imposed.

The letter of final disposition from the Deputy Provost Marshal Professional Standards to the member who had been arrested stated that the investigation found evidence that he had committed five service offences in connection with the events on the day of his arrest; supplied his brother with misleading information; and was found to have violated three sections of the Military Police Professional Code of Conduct. The arrested member's military police credentials were suspended a few days later.

The final letter from the Deputy Provost Marshal Professional Standards to the arrested member's brother - who filed the initial complaint - criticized him for not verifying the accuracy of the information he received from his brother prior to lodging his complaint.

Request for Review and Second Complaint

After receiving the Letter of Final Disposition, the brother of the arrested member asked the Complaints Commission to review both the Canadian Forces National Investigation Service and the Professional Standards investigations. A short time later, the member who had been arrested contacted the Complaints Commission to complain about his arrest, the investigation by the Canadian Forces National Investigation Service, and the actions taken against him by the Deputy Provost Marshal Professional Standards.

The Public Interest Investigation by Military Police Complaints Commission part-time Members, Seheult and Emond

On October 31, 2002, the Chairperson caused the Complaints Commission to conduct a public interest investigation, delegating part-time Commission Members Mr. Peter Seheult and Mr. Odilon Emond, to do so.

Upon completing the investigation, the Complaints Commission Members prepared an interim report, some 200 pages in length, detailing the results of the investigation and addressing a total of six key issues identified at the outset. The interim report, completed on October 23, 2003, listed 52 findings and offered 10 recommendations.

The Canadian Forces Provost Marshal's Notice of Action

The Canadian Forces Provost Marshal, as required by the National Defence Act, responded to the interim report issued by the Complaints Commission in October 2003 with a Notice of Action in mid-February 2004.

In the Notice of Action, the Provost Marshal rejected the majority of the Complaints Commission Members' findings and recommendations, stating that the matter was outside the jurisdiction of the Complaints Commission.

Despite the admission by the Deputy Provost Marshal Professional Standards that the initial conduct complaint had been classified as "internal" by mistake, and should have been dealt with under the complaints process set out in Part IV of the National Defence Act, the Provost Marshal stated that the arrest of the member in question was conducted as part of an administrative procedure related to discipline within a military unit. As such, the Provost Marshal maintained that the military police members who made the arrest were not performing a policing duty or function, and thus the complaint was an "internal" matter. The Provost Marshal further stated that the Complaints Commission had neither the competence nor the expertise to make findings related to issues of military discipline.

The Final Report of the Complaints Commission

After considering the Provost Marshal's Notice of Action, Complaints Commission Members Seheult and Emond issued a final report of the public interest investigation in July 2004.

Regardless of the reason for the arrest, administrative or not, the Complaints Commission Members held that, in essence, 'an arrest is an arrest.' The Complaints About the Conduct of Members of the Military Police Regulations defines what are to be considered policing duties or functions for the purposes of the complaints process set out in Part IV of the National Defence Act. In the Regulations, "the arrest or custody of a person" is listed as a policing duty or function.

The final report details the findings related to six key issues in this case, identified by the Complaints Commission Members at the outset of their investigation:

Issue 1 and Issue 2
Was the order to arrest the military police member in December 2000 proper and lawful? Was the arrest itself proper and lawful?

The Complaints Commission Members found that, while in an agitated state following a heated telephone conversation with his subordinate, the arrested member's supervisor did not give the military police members enough information to allow them to determine whether, as arresting officers, they had reasonable and probable grounds to make an arrest. The direction from the supervisor amounted, in essence, to 'tell him to report to the guardhouse, and if he refuses, arrest him.' Further, by failing to confirm either why the supervisor wanted the member to report to the guardhouse or the reason for an arrest, the two military police members were unable to properly advise the member of the reason he was being arrested. Indeed, when the member asked the military police members at his home why he was being arrested, the responses ranged from, "I don't know" to "I surmise it might be..."

Moreover, the Complaints Commission Members found that the arrest was not necessary nor was it reasonable or proportional to the alleged violation. The Complaints Commission also found that, in ordering the arrest, the member's supervisor acted beyond the scope of his authority and responsibilities in the circumstances.

Issue 3
Was the release of the arrested member by the senior military police member proper and lawful?

During a meeting with the arrested member and his supervisor, a more senior military police member released the member from arrest, and instructed another military police member to drive him home.

Both the Queen's Regulations and Orders for the Canadian Forces and the National Defence Act make it clear that only the arresting officer - which, in this case, would have been one of the two military police members who had gone to the member's home - and other specified authorities have the authority to release the arrested person from custody. As such, the Complaints Commission Members found the senior military police member did not have the authority to release the arrested member.

Issue 4
Did the senior military police member, during the meeting on the day of the arrest at which he attempted to "defuse the situation," use intimidation or other means in an effort to deter the arrested member from making a complaint?

The Complaints Commission Members found that some of the words and gestures used by the senior military police member during this meeting could have been viewed as intimidating by someone subordinate in rank, and who was under arrest. While some of the words and gestures were not appropriate in the circumstances, Complaints Commission Members could not conclude that they were used by the senior military police member as an attempt or with the intention of intimidating the arrested member from making further complaints.

Issue 5
Are the rights of complainants being negated due to a lack of adherence to Part IV of the National Defence Act, through the classification of complaints as "internal"?

The Complaints Commission has been concerned for some time about the process by which the Provost Marshal determines whether an allegation of misconduct is brought forward as a formal complaint, and thus subject to the open and transparent process set out in Part IV of the National Defence Act, or is dealt with as an "internal" matter and, as a result, eludes civilian oversight.

Certainly, there can be many situations where the alleged misconduct is of a strictly administrative or internal nature, and it is normal that such matters would be handled within the Provost Marshal's organization. At the same time, if the principles of civilian oversight are to be respected, it is essential that the process by which this determination is made be coherent and transparent.

In this case, as noted earlier, the Deputy Provost Marshal Professional Standards advised the Chairperson that the conduct complaint filed by the arrested member's brother had been classified as "internal" as the result of an error. Although they were not satisfied by the explanation for the error, the Complaints Commission Members did agree that the complaint could have been designated as "internal" by mistake.

Nonetheless, the National Defence Act is clear in its requirement that the Chairperson of the Complaints Commission be notified of all conduct complaints relating to the performance of policing duties and functions as soon as practicable after they are received. If conduct complaints brought to the attention of the Canadian Forces Provost Marshal are classified as "internal," whether by design or by mistake, complainants may never be notified of their right to have their complaints reviewed by the Complaints Commission. Both the complainant and the subject of the complaint may also lose the right to have the complaint monitored by the Complaints Commission at all stages of the process, and both may also lose the right to have the complaint investigated by the Complaints Commission through a public interest investigation or hearing.

Issue 6
Did the Deputy Provost Marshal Professional Standards handle the conduct complaint filed by the arrested military police member's brother properly, and were the arrested military police member and his brother treated fairly after the complaint was filed?

Although the Complaints Commission Members had no major concerns with the investigation into the member's arrest conducted by the Canadian Forces National Investigation Service, they did express a number of concerns about the Professional Standards investigation into the conduct complaint filed by the arrested member's brother.

The Professional Standards investigator told Complaints Commission Members in an interview that, from the outset of his investigation, it appeared to him that the arrested member might have committed service offences in the course of events on the day of his arrest. The investigator also said that, based on his review of the Canadian Forces National Investigation Service investigation, he had strong doubts about the credibility of the member who had been arrested and that it was clear to him that the member had "manipulated information."

Complaints Commission Members found that, at this point in the investigation, the arrested member should have been designated as a subject of the complaint. In addition, when the investigator determined the arrested member's brother may have committed a violation of the Military Police Professional Code of Conduct by not confirming the accuracy of the information provided by his brother, he too should have been designated as a subject of complaint, and a new, separate investigation into those allegations should have been initiated.

Beyond finding that the arrested military police member and his brother were not treated fairly during the investigation, the Complaints Commission Members also questioned whether the arrested member had committed the five service offences detailed in the letter of final disposition from the Deputy Provost Marshal Professional Standards, or had provided misleading information to his brother that was relevant to the conduct complaint. The Complaints Commission Members also disagreed with the Deputy Provost Marshal Professional Standards findings regarding the arrested member's brother, rejecting the idea that he was negligent in basing his complaint on the information he received from his brother without confirming the accuracy of the information.

In making the latter finding, the Complaints Commission Members noted that the Military Police Professional Code of Conduct requires any member of the military to report to a superior a belief in or an awareness of an allegation that a member of the military police had breached the Code of Conduct. There is no requirement to verify or investigate the allegation before it is reported, as implied by the finding of the Deputy Provost Marshal Professional Standards.

Complaints Commission Members' Recommendations

In addition to recommending additional training for the member's supervisor and the two military police members who carried out the arrest, the Complaints Commission Members recommended that, in order to maintain high police standards, the Provost Marshal should ensure all military police members are trained to understand, respect and fully protect the rights of individuals, as well as the law governing the exercise of the power of arrest.

To ensure the rights of complainants and subjects of complaint alike are protected, the Complaints Commission Members also recommended that the Complaints Commission be involved with the Provost Marshal in developing the criteria under which a complaint is classified as "internal." As part of this recommendation, the Complaints Commission Members stated that, in the case of complaints that are classed as "internal", complainants should be advised of their right to have this decision reviewed by the Complaints Commission.

Conclusion

There is no question of the impact of these complaints and three separate investigations, stretching over a period of nearly four years, on the subject members, the complainants and their families. At the same time, the incidents that occurred in December 2000 related to core issues in military policing, such as the proper role and conduct of the military police when making arrests.

The power to arrest and detain a person is an exceptional power. It is essential that all Canadians, whether they are members of the Canadian Forces or of the general public, can have confidence that their police services will exercise this exceptional power only when it is proper and reasonable to do so. This requires that police understand the law governing the exercise of the power of arrest.

Case No. 2 - Conduct Complaint - Request for Review

Facts and Complaint

A member of the Canadian Forces, whose wife operated a childcare business in their home, complained that a military police member had used his status as such to intimidate the complainant's wife during a disagreement over payment and receipts for childcare. In doing so, the complainant alleged that the military police member had engaged in conduct likely to discredit the military police, or call into question the member's ability to carry out his duties in a faithful and impartial manner - a violation of the Military Police Professional Code of Conduct.

An investigation by the Deputy Provost Marshal Professional Standards supported this allegation. In the letter of final disposition, the Deputy Provost Marshal noted that, while the relationship between the subject member and the complainant's wife was a private matter, the Military Police Professional Code of Conduct applies to behaviour both on- and off-duty.

On the day before the Deputy Provost Marshal Professional Standards issued the letter of final disposition, a letter signed by a number of parents, including the military police member who was the subject of the initial complaint, was delivered to provincial child welfare authorities. This letter detailed a number of concerns about the quality of childcare provided by the complainant's wife. After learning of this letter, the complainant filed a second complaint against the military police member, alleging it was retaliation for the initial complaint. The complainant further alleged that the military police member knowingly made false statements in the letter to child welfare authorities, and used his position to coerce or coax other parents into adding their names to the complaint.

It should be noted that an investigation by the provincial child welfare agency, which included interviews with both past and present clients of the childcare, did not substantiate any of the allegations raised in the letter. The provincial agency stated that it had no child protection concerns with respect to the operation of the childcare facility.

Disposition by the Canadian Forces Provost Marshal

Following an investigation of the second complaint, the Deputy Provost Marshal Professional Standards concluded that the military police member's letter to child welfare authorities was motivated by a desire to retaliate for the conduct complaint that had been filed against him, and thus the military police member had violated the Military Police Professional Code of Conduct. This investigation did not, however, support the allegations that the military police member had used his position to influence other parents to join in the complaint, nor did the investigation support the complainant's allegation that the subject member knowingly made false statements in the letter to the child welfare agency.

The complainant, not fully satisfied with the findings of the Deputy Provost Marshal Professional Standards investigation, asked the Complaints Commission to review the matter.

Issues, Findings and Recommendations

The National Defence Act specifies that the Complaints Commission is to review only those complaints against military police members that relate to the performance of their policing duties and functions, as set out in the regulations attached to the Act. In this instance, therefore, it was necessary to determine whether the subject member's actions related to the performance of his policing duties and functions prior to conducting a complete review.

Complaints Commission Member Mr. Henry Kostuck conducted an extensive examination of documents and other information provided by the Deputy Provost Marshal Professional Standards, and also considered the results of interviews of the complainant and his wife carried out by the Complaints Commission.

Although complicated by the allegation that the subject of the complaint had used his status as a military police member to advance a personal cause, Mr. Kostuck concluded that the subject member was acting as a parent, and not as a police officer, and that the Deputy Provost Marshal Professional Standards was correct in finding that the relationship between the subject member and the complainant's wife was of a private nature, unrelated to the performance of his policing duties and functions. As such, Mr. Kostuck found that the Complaints Commission did not have jurisdiction in this case, and thus could not comment on the findings or recommendations of the investigation conducted by the Deputy Provost Marshal Professional Standards.

Case No. 3 - Conduct Complaint - Request for Review

Facts and Complaint

Following the investigation of an altercation between two young people in a recreation area on a Canadian Forces Base, a military police member charged one of the young people with assault.

The father of the young person charged sent a memo to his Chain of Command at the Base, detailing his concerns with the actions of the military police member involved in the case. Two weeks later, the Chain of Command forwarded this memo to the Military Police Detachment on the Base, whereupon the military police member in question was directed to provide "his side of the story" in a written reply to the father of the young person. The military police member did so, although the reply was never delivered to the father of the young person.

During the two weeks between sending his original memo to the Chain of Command and its arrival at the Military Police Detachment, the young person's father also submitted a Military Police Complaint Form concerning the conduct of the military police member in question.

Among other concerns, the father of the young person stated that the military police member did not conduct a thorough investigation of the incident, used excessive force in arresting the young person, and that, in general, members of the Military Police Detachment were not fostering a positive relationship with the young people who use the facilities of the community centre on the Base.

The Deputy Provost Marshal Professional Standards subsequently reviewed this complaint.

Disposition by the Canadian Forces Provost Marshal

A Professional Standards investigation initiated by the Deputy Provost Marshal Professional Standards concluded that the military police member did not conduct a proper investigation into the incident, resulting in the premature arrest and detention of the young person, but did not support the allegation that the military police member had used excessive force in arresting the young person. The Professional Standards investigation did not reach any conclusions regarding the third allegation - that the actions of military police in general were serving to erode, rather than build, a relationship of trust with young people on the Base.

In a letter of final disposition to the complainant and the subject of the complaint, the Deputy Provost Marshal Professional Standards summarized the findings of the investigation, and noted that the subject member would be counselled with regard to the shortcomings in his handling of the incident. As well, he would undergo refresher training in the areas of arrest, detention and custody, investigative procedures, and dealing with young persons.

Although he agreed that excessive force had not been used in the arrest of his son, the father of the young person was not completely satisfied with the way his complaint had been handled and requested a review by the Complaints Commission. In his request for review, the complainant questioned the accuracy of some of the statements in the Letter of Final Disposition, and stated that he was not satisfied with the response to his allegation that military police had been harassing young people at the Base community centre. The complainant also stated that he did not believe counselling and refresher training were sufficient consequences for the conduct of the military police member in this case.

Issues, Findings and Recommendations

The Chairperson also found the Deputy Provost Marshal Professional Standards' direction that the military police member be counselled and undergo refresher training in a number of areas to be an appropriate response in this case, and in keeping with current practices in police discipline which favour a more remedial, rather than punitive, approach.

Nonetheless, Madame Cobetto identified a number of issues that may have contributed to the complainant's dissatisfaction with the disposition of his complaint, as well as concern over the handling of the initial complaint filed by the young person's father:

1. The complainant's memo to his Chain of Command was a conduct complaint, and should have been treated as such by military police

In submitting a memo to his Chain of Command outlining his concerns over the arrest of his son, the father believed, and the Chairperson agreed, that he had filed a complaint about the conduct of the military police member involved. Thus, when the Chain of Command forwarded the memo to the Military Police Detachment, it should have been treated as a conduct complaint, and passed on to the Canadian Forces Provost Marshal for consideration and acknowledgement, as required by Part IV of the National Defence Act. Instead, the military police member was instructed to put "his side of the story" in writing, and send it to the young person's father.

The Chairperson described this response as inappropriate, and noted that, had the complainant not repeated his complaint by filing a Military Police Complaint Form, it is possible this complaint may have been ignored altogether.

The Canadian Forces Provost Marshal disagreed with this finding, stating that the complainant's memo to his Chain of Command was a "request for assistance," and not a complaint. The Provost Marshal further stated that military police "fully complied with the requirements of Part IV of the Act upon its receipt of the only complaint made to it," referring to the Military Police Complaint Form submitted by the complainant some days after he had put his concerns in writing to his Chain of Command.

2. The letter of final disposition to the complainant differed in important ways from the letter of final disposition to the subject of the complaint

As noted in earlier reports prepared by the Complaints Commission, the Chairperson has long held that the letter of final disposition should provide the same substance and quality of information to both the complainant and the subject of the complaint. In this case, the Chairperson found some statements in the final letter to the complainant were included without proper context, and that the letter did not contain enough information to allow him to understand clearly how and why the conclusions regarding his complaint were reached. It was the Chairperson's opinion that the lack of detail in the final letter may have contributed to the complainant's decision to request a review of his complaint.

As a result, the Chairperson recommended the Deputy Provost Marshal Professional Standards adopt a practice whereby the letter of final disposition sent to the complainant and to the subject of the complaint are identical.

In response, the Canadian Forces Provost Marshal has implemented a policy under which the complainant and the subject of the complaint, as well as the Complaints Commission, all receive the same information in the final letter prepared by the Deputy Provost Marshal Professional Standards.

The Chairperson welcomed this decision by the Provost Marshal, but also stated her disappointment that the Provost Marshal directed that the final letter, now known as the "Report on Findings and Actions," would contain only that information considered to have direct relevance to the complaint.

Professional Standards investigations of conduct complaints often lead to incidental findings and observations that, in turn, can lead to changes that enhance the professionalism of Canadian Forces Military Police.

In this case, for example, the Professional Standards investigator observed a lack of follow-through and "vetting" of the investigation into the initial incident by the subject member's Chain of Command; that the form used by the Military Police Detachment to provide information to Crown prosecutors indicates the information contained in the form belongs to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (which could hamper any potential access to information request); and that the subject of the complaint did not believe it was necessary to complete a Military Police Investigation Report in this case because it involved charges against a civilian.

These and other observations, as well as recommendations to address them, were included in the letter of final disposition to the subject of the complaint, but not in the letter to the complainant.

While not directly related to the matter at hand, the Chairperson noted that being made aware of these incidental findings can help both the complainant and the subject of the complaint see the true impact and significance of the complaints process.

3. The importance of advising complainants that remedial measures directed and/or recommended by the Canadian Forces Provost Marshal are implemented

Openness and transparency are fundamental to the effectiveness of the complaints process. These qualities are essential to assure subjects of complaint that the allegations against them are investigated in a fair and impartial manner, and equally, to assure complainants their complaint was not made in vain. In this case, the complainant's request for review indicated he did not believe counselling and refresher training in arrest, detention and custody, investigative procedures, and dealing with young persons were sufficient consequences for the conduct of the military police member.

Had the complainant been provided with more information on what such counselling and training involved and the specific deficiencies it was intended to address, and notified of its successful completion, it is possible he may have expressed greater satisfaction with the disposition of his complaint.

In this regard, the Chairperson repeated a recommendation that has been made in a number of previous reports from the Complaints Commission: that the Provost Marshal provide complainants with a detailed summary of the remedial measures that have been directed, and also of the status of the implementation of these measures. Section 250.29 of the National Defence Act states that a summary of any action that has or will be taken with respect to the disposition of a conduct complaint, including action taken concerning a member of the military police, must be given to the complainant.

Case No. 4 - Interference Complaint

Any member of the military police who conducts or supervises a military police investigation, and who believes any member of the Canadian Forces or senior official of the Department of National Defence has interfered with the investigation may make a complaint about that person under Part IV of the National Defence Act. The Military Police Complaints Commission has exclusive jurisdiction over the investigation of interference complaints.

The Complaints Commission received two complaints of interference during 2004. One of these complaints was somewhat unusual, in that it concerned the actions of a member of a foreign military police service deployed to Canada as part of a visiting military force. The Canadian Forces military police member complained that the foreign military police member asked him to cancel a parking ticket he had given to another member of the visiting force.

The Complaints Commission could not deal with this complaint, as Part IV of the National Defence Act does not allow for complaints of interference against members of other military forces. In responding to the complainant, the Chairperson noted that this issue would be taken under advisement in the context of possible future revisions to the Act.

Back to the table of content