Conduct Case MPCC‑2017‑016 Summary
(Failure to take a victim-centered approach)
In this case, the Military Police Complaints Commission (MPCC) considered what it means for military police to take a victim-centered approach.
In June 2023, the complainant requested that the MPCC review her complaint that the Canadian Forces National Investigation Service (CFNIS) did not treat her in a manner consistent with applicable professional standards and victim-centred expectations, including in the choice of investigator and in communications with her. The complainant had wished to continue working with the same investigator who had been assigned to her previously reported sexual assaults and this request was denied.
Although her complaint was originally made in 2017, she said the delay in seeking review was due to trauma resulting from historic sexual assaults.
The Office of Professional Standards (PS) of the Canadian Forces Provost Marshal (CFPM) reviewed the complaint in the first instance. Though PS sent the complainant a letter requesting further information, it concluded that the complaint was not made in good faith and was the result of collusion between the complainant and the complainant’s preferred CFNIS investigator, without interviewing either of them.
After reviewing the complaint and available evidence, the MPCC did not find the complainant’s specific allegations to be supported by the evidence and did not find that either of the subjects’ actions amounted to misconduct.
The MPCC did find, however, that this case demonstrated two important issues. First, that the CFNIS had not implemented a victim-centred approach in managing the complainant’s case and that aspects of one subject’s supervision reflected gaps in leadership practice; and second, that the PS investigation into this case was not procedurally fair. The MPCC identified this as a recurring issue in PS investigations and made recommendations aimed at ensuring future PS investigations are both fair and seen to be fair.
On July 2, 2026, the CFPM issued a Notice of Action in response to the MPCC’s Interim Report. Of the seven recommendations made, the MPCC considered four partially accepted and three not accepted by the CFPM.
The general thrust of the CFPM’s response to the recommendations is that the events giving rise to this complaint date to 2017, and that improvements made since mean that no further action is required. The MPCC acknowledges that there is now an established framework for victim-centric and trauma-informed services that did not exist at the time of the events of this case. This said, the MPCC highlighted specific concerns in this report and did not consider that the CFPM’s response fully responded to them. The MPCC found it particularly concerning that the CFPM had relied on an internal standard operating procedure in asserting that no actions are necessary, but refused to provide the MPCC with this document.
- Date modified: