Interference Case MPCC‑2019‑041 Summary

In October 2019, the complainant filed a complaint with the Military Police Complaints Commission (MPCC) regarding the actions of a Military Police (MP) Detachment commander, a Major, on a Canadian Forces Base.

In November 2018, the complainant MP Sgt received an email from an Assistant provincial Crown Attorney, requesting assistance with an ongoing Ontario Provincial Police investigation.  The complainant was able to provide help for her request. About a month later, the same Assistant Crown Attorney asked him if he could attend court in case he would be needed to testify as an expert witness, and sent him a subpoena. The complainant informed his Warrant Officer (WO) about this, who then told the complainant’s Detachment Commanding Officer (CO), who, in turn, informed his Chain of Command (CoC). The CoC was apparently not happy with this. The complainant’s CO told him that he would not be allowed to attend court, but the complainant said he would have to go because he has been subpoenaed, which was confirmed by the WO.

On December 3rd, 2018, the complainant’s CO directed the WO and the complainant to attend the CO’s office, and, after a brief discussion, the CO demanded a briefing note on the details of the court case in question, as well as the Crown Attorney’s office number. That evening, the Assistant Crown Attorney told the complainant he would not be needed in court as the defense conceded based on the information he previously provided. The complainant also found out that the Major had called the Crown Attorney’s office to prevent him from testifying.

The complainant alleged that the Major interjected and interfered with the investigation and the trial process, even if he was not successful, and believes that someone who is in a command role should know that demanding information regarding an ongoing investigation or court process is wrong.

After reviewing the substantial documentation provided by the complainant and the disclosure provided by the CF MP Gp office of Professional Standards, the MPCC found that, as the investigation in question was not a military police investigation, the complainant’s allegation did not constitute a valid interference complaint within the meaning of Part IV of the National Defence Act (NDA), and in particular, NDA subsection 250.19(1), which reads:

250.19 (1) Any member of the military police who conducts or supervises a military police investigation, or who has done so, and who believes on reasonable grounds that any officer or non-commissioned member or any senior official of the Department has improperly interfered with the investigation may make a complaint about that person under this Division.
Date modified: