Interference Case MPCC‑2023‑031 Summary

A member of the military police filed a complaint against a colleague (the subject) alleging interference in a traffic stop investigation. The complainant had stopped a driver for speeding, who was a close relative of the subject. During the traffic stop, the subject spoke to the driver via Bluetooth and offered to handle the situation. Later, the subject attempted to contact the complainant via Facebook Messenger, but he declined the call. The complainant reported the incident to his chain of command, who indicated that the subject had already informed them about the traffic stop.

After a careful review of all relevant materials, the MPCC concluded that there was insufficient evidence to support the allegation of interference. The investigation found no attempt by the subject to prevent, cancel, or otherwise influence the issuance of the speeding ticket. However, the MPCC noted that it was not advisable for the subject to contact the complainant during the traffic stop and that the subject's expression of frustration to the chain of command was not ideal, given the involvement of a close relative. The MPCC concluded that, while the subject’s actions did not amount to improper interference, they could be perceived as a conflict of interest and potentially misinterpreted. Therefore, the MPCC recommended that the subject reviews the order on conducting investigations, which prohibits military police members from participating in investigations where they have a personal interest with the alleged offender. The MPCC also recommended reminding military police members to avoid involvement in matters involving close relatives or personal connections and stressed the importance of separating personal relationships from professional duties to uphold the integrity and public trust in law enforcement operations.

The MPCC sent its Interim Report to the then Chief of the Defence Staff (CDS) for review. The CDS responded that no action was required on his part and suggested that the MPCC raise its recommendations to the Canadian Forces Provost Marshal (CFPM), who was better positioned to address them. The CFPM refused to provide responses to the recommendations stating he had no legislative responsibility to respond. Although asserting that appropriate action would be taken as necessary, the CFPM refused to specify which actions would be implemented regarding the recommendations. The MPCC considers its recommendations as not accepted.

Date modified: