This document outlines the public complaints policy of MMPR Security Services Ltd. It details the process for handling public complaints against licensed employees, including acknowledging complaints, notifying employees, investigating within 90 days, and notifying all relevant parties of the outcome. It specifies that criminal allegations will be reported to police. It provides criteria for when an investigation is not required and the notification process for that. It also addresses anonymous complaints, informal complaint resolutions, and requests for review of the complaint outcome.
Outcome of Local Resolution to a complaint (CO 535/17) into Humberside police failing to investigate criminal allegations of malfeasance and fraud involving a false claim made by Justices' clerk for Humber and South Yorkshire that 10 items of post had been sent to the complainant between 19 December 2013 and 13 December 2016 which the complainant claims never to have received, and believes they were dishonestly constructed later (to cover their tracks) to satisfy enquiries made by the judicial ombudsman (JACO). The complainant considers these matters should be investigated by Humberside Police as a Crime....//..... Appeal against the Outcome of Local Resolution to a complaint (CO 49/18) into Humberside police failing to investigate criminal allegations of malfeasance and fraud involving a false claim made by Justices' clerk for Humber and South Yorkshire that 10 items of post had been sent to the complainant between the 19/12/2013 to 22/07/2016 which the complainant claims never to have received, and believes they were dishonestly constructed later to satisfy enquiries made by the judicial ombudsman. The complainant considers these matters should be investigated by Humberside Police as a Crime
Media statement pravin gordhan_pp_judgmentSABC News
Today’s judgment by a full bench of the High Court in Pretoria, against a Report of the Public
Protector of 5 July 2019, is an indictment on Adv Busisiwe Mkhwebane, whose conduct was
found to be biased, egregious and dishonest
Letter Before Action (26 September 2019) in the matter of a proposed application for judicial review of the Independent Office for Police Conduct decisions (refs: 2017/082079 and 2019/115969) in relation to appeals against Humberside Police complaint investigation outcome letters of 12 September 2018 and 7 March 2019 (refs: CO/432/15 and CO/632/18) which were dealt with unlawfully in just about every way imaginable. The initial matter (CO/432/15) concerns a police conduct complaint submitted 8 November 2015 which was initially dealt with by way of Local Resolution. The outcome (which was appealed and referred to the IOPC) was provided on 3 April 2017. On completing the review, the IOPC deemed the statutory conditions were not met for the matter to be suitable for local resolution and directed the force to fully investigate the complaint, taking into consideration further information such as evidence in support of alleged collusion between the police, CPS and Courts. Humberside Police ignored the IOPC and dealt with the complaint omitting to consider the further information and evidence and the IOPC was satisfied with how the complaint was investigated. The following matter (CO/632/18) concerns a police conduct complaint submitted inadvertently on 10 October 2018 which was deemed appropriate to be proportionately investigated. The force had – so it claimed – sent the complaint investigation outcome letter concerning CO/432/15 to the wrong address thereby failing to provide sufficient safeguard against unauthorised access, loss or damage to someone’s personal data. The letter contained details of the criminal record of the person whose data protection rights were infringed upon and the reason for his arrest. The data breach (if the letter had in fact been sent) was more severe/unfair due to the disclosed details of the criminal record relating to a wrongful conviction contributed by witnesses committing perjury (the arresting officer is suspected to have incited them). The correspondence to the police on 10 October was not intended as a formal complaint but was handled as one by the force in accordance with the complaint’s procedure under the police reform Act. The communication was predominantly to alert the force of its obligations to refer the personal data breach to the Information Commissioner and to obtain some preliminary information in anticipation of submitting a complaint (to the force) in case it was a prerequisite to raising the issue with the Commissioner. The queries were never answered and the Investigating Officer just ploughed on with the process regardless ignoring the complainant. Consequently the complainant was unable to feed into the process in respect of the information he was denied throughout the course of the investigation because it was not until it was too late when the investigation had completed that the questions he had asked were answered. The Investigation outcome revealed that ‘the matter was referred to .......
Outcome of Local Resolution to a complaint (CO 535/17) into Humberside police failing to investigate criminal allegations of malfeasance and fraud involving a false claim made by Justices' clerk for Humber and South Yorkshire that 10 items of post had been sent to the complainant between 19 December 2013 and 13 December 2016 which the complainant claims never to have received, and believes they were dishonestly constructed later (to cover their tracks) to satisfy enquiries made by the judicial ombudsman (JACO). The complainant considers these matters should be investigated by Humberside Police as a Crime....//..... Appeal against the Outcome of Local Resolution to a complaint (CO 49/18) into Humberside police failing to investigate criminal allegations of malfeasance and fraud involving a false claim made by Justices' clerk for Humber and South Yorkshire that 10 items of post had been sent to the complainant between the 19/12/2013 to 22/07/2016 which the complainant claims never to have received, and believes they were dishonestly constructed later to satisfy enquiries made by the judicial ombudsman. The complainant considers these matters should be investigated by Humberside Police as a Crime
Media statement pravin gordhan_pp_judgmentSABC News
Today’s judgment by a full bench of the High Court in Pretoria, against a Report of the Public
Protector of 5 July 2019, is an indictment on Adv Busisiwe Mkhwebane, whose conduct was
found to be biased, egregious and dishonest
Letter Before Action (26 September 2019) in the matter of a proposed application for judicial review of the Independent Office for Police Conduct decisions (refs: 2017/082079 and 2019/115969) in relation to appeals against Humberside Police complaint investigation outcome letters of 12 September 2018 and 7 March 2019 (refs: CO/432/15 and CO/632/18) which were dealt with unlawfully in just about every way imaginable. The initial matter (CO/432/15) concerns a police conduct complaint submitted 8 November 2015 which was initially dealt with by way of Local Resolution. The outcome (which was appealed and referred to the IOPC) was provided on 3 April 2017. On completing the review, the IOPC deemed the statutory conditions were not met for the matter to be suitable for local resolution and directed the force to fully investigate the complaint, taking into consideration further information such as evidence in support of alleged collusion between the police, CPS and Courts. Humberside Police ignored the IOPC and dealt with the complaint omitting to consider the further information and evidence and the IOPC was satisfied with how the complaint was investigated. The following matter (CO/632/18) concerns a police conduct complaint submitted inadvertently on 10 October 2018 which was deemed appropriate to be proportionately investigated. The force had – so it claimed – sent the complaint investigation outcome letter concerning CO/432/15 to the wrong address thereby failing to provide sufficient safeguard against unauthorised access, loss or damage to someone’s personal data. The letter contained details of the criminal record of the person whose data protection rights were infringed upon and the reason for his arrest. The data breach (if the letter had in fact been sent) was more severe/unfair due to the disclosed details of the criminal record relating to a wrongful conviction contributed by witnesses committing perjury (the arresting officer is suspected to have incited them). The correspondence to the police on 10 October was not intended as a formal complaint but was handled as one by the force in accordance with the complaint’s procedure under the police reform Act. The communication was predominantly to alert the force of its obligations to refer the personal data breach to the Information Commissioner and to obtain some preliminary information in anticipation of submitting a complaint (to the force) in case it was a prerequisite to raising the issue with the Commissioner. The queries were never answered and the Investigating Officer just ploughed on with the process regardless ignoring the complainant. Consequently the complainant was unable to feed into the process in respect of the information he was denied throughout the course of the investigation because it was not until it was too late when the investigation had completed that the questions he had asked were answered. The Investigation outcome revealed that ‘the matter was referred to .......
Statement reporting North East Lincolnshire Council for committing perjury with intent to defraud the defendant for a hearing at Grimsby Magistrates' court in which the judge was complicit.
Iopc response letter before action 24 oct 19John Smith
IOPC’s 24 October response to Letter Before Action (26 September 2019) in the matter of a proposed application for judicial review of the Independent Office for Police Conduct decisions (refs: 2017/082079 and 2019/115969) in relation to appeals against Humberside Police complaint investigation outcome letters of 12 September 2018 and 7 March 2019 (refs: CO/432/15 and CO/632/18) which were dealt with unlawfully in just about every way imaginable. The initial matter (CO/432/15) concerns a police conduct complaint submitted 8 November 2015 which was initially dealt with by way of Local Resolution. The outcome (which was appealed and referred to the IOPC) was provided on 3 April 2017. On completing the review, the IOPC deemed the statutory conditions were not met for the matter to be suitable for local resolution and directed the force to fully investigate the complaint, taking into consideration further information such as evidence in support of alleged collusion between the police, CPS and Courts. Humberside Police ignored the IOPC and dealt with the complaint omitting to consider the further information and evidence and the IOPC was satisfied with how the complaint was investigated. The following matter (CO/632/18) concerns a police conduct complaint submitted inadvertently on 10 October 2018 which was deemed appropriate to be proportionately investigated. The force had – so it claimed – sent the complaint investigation outcome letter concerning CO/432/15 to the wrong address thereby failing to provide sufficient safeguard against unauthorised access, loss or damage to someone’s personal data. The letter contained details of the criminal record of the person whose data protection rights were infringed upon and the reason for his arrest. The data breach (if the letter had in fact been sent) was more severe/unfair due to the disclosed details of the criminal record relating to a wrongful conviction contributed by witnesses committing perjury (the arresting officer is suspected to have incited them). The correspondence to the police on 10 October was not intended as a formal complaint but was handled as one by the force in accordance with the complaint’s procedure under the police reform Act. The communication was predominantly to alert the force of its obligations to refer the personal data breach to the Information Commissioner and to obtain some preliminary information in anticipation of submitting a complaint (to the force) in case it was a prerequisite to raising the issue with the Commissioner. The queries were never answered and the Investigating Officer just ploughed on with the process regardless ignoring the complainant. Consequently the complainant was unable to feed into the process in respect of the information he was denied throughout the course of the investigation because it was not until it was too late when the investigation had completed that the questions he had asked were answered. The Investigation outcome revealed that....
Maatouks Law Group is home to leading criminal defense lawyers with expertise in all aspects of Criminal Law. Depending on your instructions and the case against you, we may seek to have the charges against you withdrawn or downgraded, defend the charges at hearing or trial, or obtain the most lenient penalty available if you instruct us to plead guilty.
Statement reporting North East Lincolnshire Council for committing perjury with intent to defraud the defendant for a hearing at Grimsby Magistrates' court in which the judge was complicit.
Iopc response letter before action 24 oct 19John Smith
IOPC’s 24 October response to Letter Before Action (26 September 2019) in the matter of a proposed application for judicial review of the Independent Office for Police Conduct decisions (refs: 2017/082079 and 2019/115969) in relation to appeals against Humberside Police complaint investigation outcome letters of 12 September 2018 and 7 March 2019 (refs: CO/432/15 and CO/632/18) which were dealt with unlawfully in just about every way imaginable. The initial matter (CO/432/15) concerns a police conduct complaint submitted 8 November 2015 which was initially dealt with by way of Local Resolution. The outcome (which was appealed and referred to the IOPC) was provided on 3 April 2017. On completing the review, the IOPC deemed the statutory conditions were not met for the matter to be suitable for local resolution and directed the force to fully investigate the complaint, taking into consideration further information such as evidence in support of alleged collusion between the police, CPS and Courts. Humberside Police ignored the IOPC and dealt with the complaint omitting to consider the further information and evidence and the IOPC was satisfied with how the complaint was investigated. The following matter (CO/632/18) concerns a police conduct complaint submitted inadvertently on 10 October 2018 which was deemed appropriate to be proportionately investigated. The force had – so it claimed – sent the complaint investigation outcome letter concerning CO/432/15 to the wrong address thereby failing to provide sufficient safeguard against unauthorised access, loss or damage to someone’s personal data. The letter contained details of the criminal record of the person whose data protection rights were infringed upon and the reason for his arrest. The data breach (if the letter had in fact been sent) was more severe/unfair due to the disclosed details of the criminal record relating to a wrongful conviction contributed by witnesses committing perjury (the arresting officer is suspected to have incited them). The correspondence to the police on 10 October was not intended as a formal complaint but was handled as one by the force in accordance with the complaint’s procedure under the police reform Act. The communication was predominantly to alert the force of its obligations to refer the personal data breach to the Information Commissioner and to obtain some preliminary information in anticipation of submitting a complaint (to the force) in case it was a prerequisite to raising the issue with the Commissioner. The queries were never answered and the Investigating Officer just ploughed on with the process regardless ignoring the complainant. Consequently the complainant was unable to feed into the process in respect of the information he was denied throughout the course of the investigation because it was not until it was too late when the investigation had completed that the questions he had asked were answered. The Investigation outcome revealed that....
Maatouks Law Group is home to leading criminal defense lawyers with expertise in all aspects of Criminal Law. Depending on your instructions and the case against you, we may seek to have the charges against you withdrawn or downgraded, defend the charges at hearing or trial, or obtain the most lenient penalty available if you instruct us to plead guilty.
Topics covered include:
• What is RFID?
• Item identification - Barcode or RFID?
• ecom RFID portfolio
• How and where can I use RFID?
• What are the advantages and benefi ts of RFID?
Client file policy created for the Alberta Govt to gain approval for the a security guard company, this is a way to store and record documents pertaining to client files. You could use this for any business that needs a client file system. If you use and edit, please give me credit on my linked in profile. Thank you Kevin Oulette
I created this document for the use of batons and security guards. Feel free to edit this as required, but please give me the credit on my linked in profile. Thank you. Kevin Oulette, Security Consultant
i.roc® Ci70 -Ex webinar 1/3 - Increasing Mobile Computing ROI in hazardous areasecom instruments GmbH
This webinar will cover how you can:
» Maximise the return on your mobile computing investments
» Reduce the Total Cost of Ownership of the solution
» Safely expand your mobile applications into hazardous areas
» Reduce the end user's toolkit from 3 tools to 1
Policy I created for the use of handcuffs, enjoy and please give me some credit on my linked in profile if you use this, feel free to edit as required. Thank you.
Cheque bounce and Retainership lawyer in Mumbaiyer 2022.docxLexwork
Lexwork is one of the Cheating case lawyer in Mumbai, best law firm in Mumbai, Andheri west, east, Commercial lawyer, Best Family lawyer, RERA lawyer, NCLT, Mumbai. Get contact detail and more inforamatin for Lawyers for Best lawyer at Marol,Powai,Chakala,Shere Punjab
A host of allegations of misconduct, implicating senior officers at North East Lincolnshire Council, Humberside police, Local Government Ombudsman, Information Commissioner etc. Primarily concerning the council's legal department refusing to acknowledge or respond to any correspondence regarding proven allegation and evidence of criminal wrongdoing. As a consequence of the criminal negligence, the person affected has been engaged continuously with either the police, various Ombudsmen and other regulatory bodies but without justice as they have all been proven to be complicit in related matters.
More evidence of criminal misconduct within the Humberside Police Professional Standards Department. Concerns the Police's refusal to investigate allegations of perverting the course of justice on the grounds that the complaint is vexatious, tending to or intended to vex/worry/annoy officers. Allegations are that the officer has pursued a deliberate course of action to affect the course of justice; by intentionally frustrating a police investigation into serious crime to enable potential defendants to evade arrest or commit further offences. The 17 April 2019 investigation outcome along with correspondence entered into in the matter between 2 February and 30 March 2019 supports incontrovertibly that the investigation was staged to effect a cover up of serious criminal wrongdoing to vindicate the accused. An account briefly summarising each aspect of the alleged conduct relating only to allegation (1) as referred to in the investigation outcome letter of 17 April 2019 is provided in the annex to this form. Further details relating to allegations (2) an (3) may be provided as and when required. A complaint is suitable for local resolution if the appropriate authority is satisfied that the conduct being complained about, even if proven, would not justify criminal or disciplinary proceedings against the person being complained about. The conduct being complained about in this complaint would without any question if proven justify criminal and disciplinary proceedings against the person being complained about so this complaint is clearly not suitable for local resolution. It is not a repetitive complaint because I have never made a complaint about the named officer perverting the course of justice or a complaint of any sort for that matter.
Similar to Form p1006 policy on public complaint (20)
NATURE, ORIGIN AND DEVELOPMENT OF INTERNATIONAL LAW.pptxanvithaav
These slides helps the student of international law to understand what is the nature of international law? and how international law was originated and developed?.
The slides was well structured along with the highlighted points for better understanding .
Car Accident Injury Do I Have a Case....Knowyourright
Every year, thousands of Minnesotans are injured in car accidents. These injuries can be severe – even life-changing. Under Minnesota law, you can pursue compensation through a personal injury lawsuit.
A "File Trademark" is a legal term referring to the registration of a unique symbol, logo, or name used to identify and distinguish products or services. This process provides legal protection, granting exclusive rights to the trademark owner, and helps prevent unauthorized use by competitors.
Visit Now: https://www.tumblr.com/trademark-quick/751620857551634432/ensure-legal-protection-file-your-trademark-with?source=share
1. 1
Form P1006revisedMay 1st, 2014
MMPR SecurityServicesLtd.
PolicyonPublicComplaints
MMPR Security Services Ltd.
When Minutes Matter…
Public Complaints Policy
Document Status: Draft / Final Status upon approval from Solicitor General
Date Issued: May 1st, 2014
Lead Author: Kevin Oulette – Director
Approved by: MMPR Security Services Ltd.
Date for Review: May 1st, 2015
Record of Policy Review: Kevin Oulette - Director
Date Policy
was Issued
Date of Review Reason for Review Lead
Reviewer
Additional Comments
May 1st, 2014
Solicitor General
Approval
First Draft – Opening Document
Kevin
Oulette
Submitted
for approval
2. 2
Form P1006revisedMay 1st, 2014
MMPR SecurityServicesLtd.
PolicyonPublicComplaints
Table of Contents – Public Complaint Policy
1.0 Public Complaints Requiring Investigation………………………………….....Page 3
2.0 Public Complaints Policy…………........................................................Page 4
3.0 Criminal Matters…………………………………………………………………………….Page 4
4.0 Complaints not requiring investigation …………………………………….Page 4 &5
5.0 Notificationthat investigationwill not proceed ……………………………..Page5
6.0 Anonymous complaints ………………………………………………………………….Page5
7.0 Informal resolutions of complaints …………………………………………………Page5
Complaints Coordinator, Fax: 780-427-4670
Security Programs Justice and Solicitor General
9th Floor, 10365-97 Street Edmonton AB T5J 3W7
Fax: 780-427-4670
3. 3
Form P1006revisedMay 1st, 2014
MMPR SecurityServicesLtd.
PolicyonPublicComplaints
Functions and Delegations As per sections 24, 25, 26 and 27 of the Security Services and
InvestigatorsAct(the Act),if apubliccomplaintisreceivedaboutanemployee licensedunderthe Act, the
following process will be followed:
Thispolicyonlyappliestoindividualsdirectlyemployedbythecompanyanddoesnotapplytothe licensed
employeesof contractserviceproviders. Forthe purposesof thissection,Registrarreferstothe Registrar,
Security Services and Investigators Act, Alberta Justice and Solicitor General.
1.0 PUBLIC COMPLAINTS REQUIRING INVESTIGATION
Complaintsagainstindividual licenseesmustbe madeinwritingtothe licensee’s employerwithin90days
of the action or circumstances that prompted the complaint. If a complainant is unable to provide a
written document due to a valid reason such as language barrier or disability, an employee or manager
shall take the necessarysteps to have the complaint recorded in writing on behalf of the complainant.
“The complainant must sign the written complaint”
1.1 Within30 daysof receivingthe complaintthe employermustacknowledge receipt,in writing,to
the complainant (as per section 26 of the Security Services and Investigators Ministerial
Regulation).
1.2 In acknowledgingthe complaint,the employermustnotifythe licensedemployeewhois subject
of the complaint. The employer may delay notification to the employee under the following
circumstances. Inthe case where itis uncertainasto the appropriatenessof informingalicensee
about a complaint, the Registrar, should be consulted.
a. The complainant may be placed in danger.
b. The complainant may face other inappropriate action by the licensed employee should
the licensed employee be informed.
c. The notificationmayimpedethe gatheringof evidenceduringaninternal investigation.
d. A reasonable likelihood exists that the complaint may lead to charges under federal or
provincial legislation and that notification could impede any resulting police or other
investigative agency investigation.
e. Anyothersituationidentifiedbythe employerorRegistrarinwhichitmaybe appropriate
to delay informing the licensed employee about the complaint.
1.3 The employer must, within 90 days,
a. Investigate and dispose of the complaint (unless 3.0 below applies), and
b. Notify the complainant,the licensed employee whois the subject of the complaint, and
the Registrar(use PublicComplaintOutcome FormPS3749),in writing,of the disposition
of the complaint with reasons.
1.4 All allegations or concerns will be handled by Kevin Oulette, the Director/owner of
MMPR Security Services Ltd.
4. 4
Form P1006revisedMay 1st, 2014
MMPR SecurityServicesLtd.
PolicyonPublicComplaints
2.0 Public Complaints Policy – Complaints against Individual Licensees
The letterof disposition mustadvisethe complainantof theirrighttorequesta review of the
outcome bythe Registrar.The lettermustindicate the following:
a. If dissatisfiedwiththe outcomeof the company’sinvestigationthe complaintmayrequest
a review of the disposition by the Registrar.
b. The request must be made in writing within 30 days of receipt of the disposition.
c. Requests for review must be submitted to:
Complaints Coordinator, Security Programs
Justice and Solicitor General
9th Floor, 10365-97 Street
Edmonton AB T5J 3W7
Fax: 780-427-4670
3.0 CRIMINAL MATTERS
Any allegations of criminal misconduct must be reported to the police service of jurisdiction for
investigation. Complaints that contain allegations of excessive force are considered to be criminal
allegations.
3.1 In allegations of criminal misconduct the company may consider the obligation to reach a
conclusion within 90 days, as per section 25(4) of the Act, fulfilled if the company has:
a. Notified the police service of the allegation, and
b. Provided written notification to the complainant, and
c. Provided written notification to the Registrar that this action has occurred.
3.2 A concurrent internal investigation may proceed provided company employees
interact/cooperate with the police service and take such steps that are necessary to avoid
contaminating the criminal investigation. If a concurrent investigationis conducted it must be
completedwithin90 days as per section25(4) of the Act and the outcome report as per section
1.0 of this policy.
3.3 All allegations or concerns will be handled by Kevin Oulette/Director/owner of MMPR Security
Services Ltd.
Public Complaints Policy – Complaints against Individual Licensees
4.0 COMPLAINTS NOT REQUIRING INVESTIGATION
The Act recognizes that some complaints will be made under circumstancesin which an investigationis
not required.
4.1 Under the following conditions, the company may choose not to investigate a complaint
a. Employer utilizes an informal resolution process (see 3.4.1 below).
b. Employee no longer works for the employer.
c. Contact with complainant after submission of initial complaint cannot be made
(Documentation showingthisisthe case shouldbe keptin case of requestfor reviewby
the Registrar).
d. Anonymous complaints.
e. Frivolous: a complaint intended merely to harass or embarrass.
5. 5
Form P1006revisedMay 1st, 2014
MMPR SecurityServicesLtd.
PolicyonPublicComplaints
f. Vexatious: a complaint that has no basis in fact or reason, with its purpose to bother,
annoy, and embarrass the individual or business licensee.
g. Bad Faith: filing a complaint with intentional dishonesty or with intent to mislead.
h. Havingregard of all the circumstances,noinvestigation,inthe optionof the Employeror
Registrar, is deemed necessary.
5.0 Notification that investigation will not proceed
The employermustnotifythe complainantwithin90days of receiptof the complaintthatthe matterwill
not be investigated,exceptwhere aninformal resolutionprocessis undertaken,the complainantcannot
be contacted or the complaint is anonymous.
5.1 The lettermust advise the complainantof their rightto requesta review of the outcome by the
Registrar. The letter must indicate the following:
a. If dissatisfiedwiththe outcomeof the company’sinvestigationthe complaintmayrequest
a review of the disposition by the Registrar.
b. The request must be made in writing within 30 days of receipt of the disposition.
Requests for review must be submitted to:
Complaints Coordinator, Fax: 780-427-4670
Security Programs Justice and Solicitor General
9th Floor, 10365-97 Street Edmonton AB T5J 3W7
Fax: 780-427-4670
6.0 Anonymous complaints
Anonymous complaints do not allow the employer or the Registrar to discharge required legal
responsibilities and therefore they are not considered a complaint under the Act. If the nature of an
anonymouscomplaintisserious,the employershall review the matter andconsiderwhat,if any further
actionshouldorcan be taken.Inthe eventsome elementof substance tothe allegationisuncovered,the
employer must:
6.1 Within90days, Investigateanddisposeof the complaint,andNotifythe Registrarinwriting(use Public
Complaint Outcome Form PS3749), of the disposition of the complaint with reasons. Public Complaints
Policy – Complaints against Individual Licensees May 30, 2012 4
7.0 Informal resolutions of complaints
a. Successful informal resolution allows an investigation to be discontinued. If, in the employer’s
opinionandhavingregardto all of the circumstances,noinvestigationis necessary,the employer
may discontinue the investigation.
b. Upon successful resolution of complaint, document outcome and obtain the complainant’s
signature, where possible, to show that a matter has been informally resolved.
c. This would preclude the complainant from claiming duress or that they did not agree with the
outcome.Withoutcleardocumentation,complaintsthatare informallyresolvedbythe employer
may,in some circumstances,be eligible for review bythe Registrarandsubsequentlythe Director
of Law Enforcement, Province of Alberta.
d. Informal Complaints will be handled and documented by Kevin Oulette/director/owner
e. All allegations will be investigated to see if possible allegation has occurred.
6. 6
Form P1006revisedMay 1st, 2014
MMPR SecurityServicesLtd.
PolicyonPublicComplaints
f. If you enjoy this document, please give me the credit on my linked in profile. Feel free to edit
document as you require.
g. THANK YOU, is all I am looking for!