Conduct Case MPCC 2020‑038 Summary
The complaint concerned the conduct of a sexual assault investigation. The complainant told the Military Police Complaints Commission (MPCC) that she had been sexually assaulted on three occasions by senior military officers during an all-ranks social event at a Canadian Forces base. The complainant believed that the criminal investigation into these events was inadequate, in particular because the military police investigators:
- Did not adequately investigate the allegation that the complainant was drugged without her knowledge
- misinterpreted the legal concept of consent by failing to consider the complainant’s state of intoxication when assessing her capacity to consent to sexual activity
- Closed the investigation into this file for lack of evidence, without ever questioning the two alleged assailants
- did not investigate the circulation of [translation] “compromising” photos of the complainant taken on the evening of the assaults.
The MPCC concluded that some of the complainant’s allegations were substantiated. In particular, the MPCC found that the lead investigator had not sufficiently investigated the allegation that the complainant had been drugged without her knowledge, had improperly assessed the credibility of witnesses, and had failed to consider matters relevant to his investigation.
The MPCC made four recommendations to the Canadian Forces Provost Marshal (CFPM):
1) remind the lead investigator of best practices and note-taking requirements;
2) provide military police with additional training and develop a policy on interactions with victims;
3) remind the lead investigator of the requirements for documenting reasons for any discretionary decision; and
4) recommend that a sergeant involved in the investigation be provided with refresher training in trauma-informed investigative methods, particularly interview techniques with victims of offences against the person.
The CFPM accepted the first recommendation mentioned above and partially accepted recommendations 2 and 3. The fourth recommendation was not accepted by the CFPM.
- Date modified: