Conduct Case MPCC‑2023‑019 Summary
The Complainant alleges that the military police (MP) wrongfully informed her that they do not accompany victims of family violence to retrieve their belongings from their residence.
During its investigation, the Military Police Complaints Commission (MPCC) focused on the broader question of whether the subject MP member unreasonably refused to assist a potential victim of intimate partner violence. The MPCC found that the subject MP member did not exercise reasonable due diligence in providing assistance to the Complainant in this case.
The Complainant contacted the MP detachment to request help retrieving her belongings from the residence she shared with her former spouse.
An MP member arranged a time the next day to retrieve her belongings. The next day, the Complainant states that she was informed by the subject MP member that the military police do not offer this service and would not accompany her to the property. Instead, she was advised to call the detachment if there were further issues. The Complainant alleges that she was denied assistance even though the MPs were aware of her status as a victim of intimate partner violence by her former spouse, and of his erratic behaviour due to drug use.
The Canadian Forces Provost Marshal’s (CFPM) Office of Professional Standards (PS) reviewed the complaint in the first instance but did not interview the Subjects or the Complainant. PS noted that a search of available databases revealed no record that the Complainant was a victim of any intimate partner violence offences prior to the date of the interaction with the MPs. Therefore, PS determined that there was no obligation for the military police to assist the Complainant in retrieving her items.
The MPCC found that the allegations in this case were supported by the evidence. The facts made clear that MPs have insufficient guidance in this type of situation, including when and to whom victim services should be offered. In its report, the MPCC noted that the relevant MP Orders took an expansive definition of intimate partner violence, and recommended this approach is also taken when identifying individuals at risk of such violence.
The National Defence Act requires the CFPM to “notify the Minister and the Chairperson of any action that has been or will be taken with respect to the complaint” or, if no action is to be taken, the CFPM must provide “the reason for not so acting.”
Unfortunately, the response the CFPM provided in response to the MPCC’s Interim Report used non-committal and vague language and did not address the specifics of the recommendations. Although many of the CFPM’s comments expressed a general intent to align MP policies and procedures with Canadian best policing practices, such alignment is already an expected standard. For these reasons, the MPCC considers only 1 recommendation has been fully accepted by the CFPM, while 4 have been partially accepted and 2 have not been accepted.
- Date modified: