Interference Case MPCC‑2019‑046 Summary

The Complainant was involved in a motor vehicle accident in which he believes he should not have been found at fault. The Complainant contacted the local Military Police (MP) for assistance and provided them with pictures and a detailed description of the incident. The Complainant later found out that the other driver involved filed a complaint against him for following too closely while driving.

The Complainant alleged that the local MP detachment conducted no interviews, and that no charges were laid against the other driver. The Complainant further alleged that he was told by local MPs that the investigation was mishandled due to internal pressure from the chain of command. The Complainant requested that his investigation be transferred to the Canadian Forces National Investigation Service (CFNIS).

Subsequently, the CFNIS concluded their investigation and determined that the Complainant was at fault for driving too closely. The Complainant questioned how this could be the case, since he was never interviewed or issued a PON (Provincial Offence Notice). Later that day, the local MPs went to the Complainant’s house to issue a PON. The PON was later voided in Traffic Court as it was past the date to issue and had no supporting evidence.

After verifying certain details, it was determined that the interference complaint could not proceed because the Complainant was in fact a subject in and not the MP investigating the motor vehicle accident. The National Defence Act subsection 250.19(1) states that an interference complaint may only be made by an MP, “who conducts or supervises a military police investigation, or who has done so…”.

Date modified: