2025 Annual Report

In May 2025, the MPCC announced that it would hold its first public interest hearing since 2011. Mrs. Orton’s complaint alleges that military police were negligent during a welfare check on Master Corporal (MCpl) Shaun Orton, who was later found to have died by suicide.

On April 21, 2024, Mrs. Orton reported disturbing communications from her husband and her concerns regarding his safety to the military police. She alleges that military police delayed initiating a welfare check. When they agreed to go to his house, she alleges that they delayed entering and then ultimately found MCpl Orton’s body. Ottawa Police Service was called and noted that MCpl Orton’s body was still warm and began CPR. He was then taken to hospital by ambulance and was later pronounced dead.

Mrs. Orton also alleges that military police misplaced MCpl Orton’s suicide note while removing her husband from the house. She complains that military police did not accompany her husband to the hospital or notify the complainant of his death. They did not take a noose or pills in the house as evidence. The complainant experienced numerous difficulties in obtaining information and updates from the military police. She also noted that the military police detachment Commanding Officer sent a priest to provide her with support without asking her permission and even though she had made known that she was Jewish.

Mrs. Orton filed a complaint with the CFPM’s office of Professional Standards on June 11, 2024 and just over a month later on July 30, 2024, the then Deputy Canadian Forces Provost Marshal (DCFPM) closed the file without investigating stating it was “more appropriately dealt through the ongoing criminal investigation…” pursuant to 250.28(2)(b) of the National Defence Act.

The MPCC Chairperson wrote to the then CFPM and asked him to reconsider the decision to close the file but on November 4, 2024, the then DCFPM declined to reconsider closing the complaint.

Meanwhile, the complainant requested that the MPCC review her complaint on September 25, 2024. The MPCC requested disclosure from the CFPM’s office of Professional Standards in early October. On November 4, the then DCFPM stated that disclosure would be held in abeyance because of the ongoing criminal investigation. The MPCC’s Chairperson wrote to the CFPM on November 18, again asking for disclosure, as there was no legal basis to hold disclosure in abeyance. The Chairperson offered to place the MPCC’s review into abeyance. The CFPM refused this disclosure request in December 2024.

The MPCC’s review was placed in abeyance as it continued to make periodic inquiries into the status of the criminal investigation. In late February 2025, the complainant advised the MPCC that the criminal investigation was complete. Following repeated inquiries, the MPCC received confirmation from the new CFPM that the investigation was concluded. The MPCC review was taken out of abeyance, and a third disclosure request was made. No disclosure was received by the date requested.

This complaint raises serious, systemic issues of public interest. Welfare checks by police are an important but difficult duty, and one that had already been the subject of recommendations from the MPCC in other files. Mental health challenges within the Canadian Forces are higher than those in the general population, and suicide prevention is a top Canadian Forces priority. The military police have a specific role in the policies in place to respond to suicide risk. For all of these reasons, the MPCC Chairperson declared this case a public interest hearing.

The MPCC issued a summons to the CFPM as a witness and required her to produce documentary evidence in relation to the hearing in June 2025. Disclosure was received in July 2025.

The MPCC also sought documentary evidence from other sources, including the OPS, the Ottawa Hospital, and the complainant.

In September 2025, the CFPM brought a motion requesting interested party status under s. 250.44(b) of the Act. In a decision dated November 13, 2025, the Chairperson denied this motion but granted the CFPM status as an intervenor.

A total of 4 allegations were noted in this complaint, concerning 8 subjects. After a detailed review of the disclosure, the MPCC began pre-hearing interviews in December 2025.

The MPCC hearing is set for the spring of 2026.

Updates on the progress of the hearing will be posted on our website, under the header “Timeline”

On July 23, 2025, the MPCC announced it will hold a public interest hearing to investigate the conduct of members of the military police in relation to the alleged detention and treatment of a civilian employee during an active shooter exercise.

On November 21, 2024, the complainant, a union representative, filed a complaint with the MPCC on behalf of a civilian employee. According to the complaint, the civilian employee was affected and brutalized by military police members on the margins of an active shooter exercise on November 12, 2024, while he was on site painting at Canadian Forces Base Montreal (Longue-Pointe Garrison).

The complainant reported that the military police members pointed their weapons at the employee, dragged him by and tore his clothes, conducted a search, and threw his personal papers on the ground and used aggressive language. It is further alleged that he was left outside in 1°C temperature in torn clothing. The employee feared a serious incident was unfolding and believed he was being treated as a suspect. It is further alleged that before ordering him to leave, the officer communicated to the other officers outside that a "Black employee" was leaving, that he posed no danger and that he had just been searched.

After unsuccessful attempts to obtain information about the incident from the CFPM, the Chairperson issued a preliminary decision on December 24, 2024, concluding that the MPCC has jurisdiction to review this complaint. The Chairperson noted that when a person not participating in a military exercise is detained, the context of the exercise does not negate the requirement for proper conduct and lawful authority. Following this preliminary determination of jurisdiction, the complaint was transferred to the CFPM pursuant to subsection 250.26(1) of the National Defence Act.

In response to the complaint, the Deputy CFPM issued a final decision on January 30, 2025, indicating, without reasons, that the conduct subject to the complaint, namely “training,” is excluded from the definition of policing duties and functions.

On February 24, 2025, dissatisfied with the Deputy CFPM handling of his complaint and the decision to proceed with an internal military police investigation, the complainant requested that the MPCC conduct an independent review.

On March 5, 2025, the MPCC sent a notice of review and a request for disclosure to the CFPM. In response to the notice of review, the new CFPM, who took office on December 10, 2024, sent a letter to the MPCC on May 9, 2025, stating that there could be no review under Part IV of the National Defence Act. In her letter, the CFPM reiterated her position that there is no ambiguity that training is excluded from policing duties and functions and advised that no information will be provided to the MPCC.

Given the seriousness of the allegations, the potential systemic issues involved and the public interest, the Chairperson determined that a public interest hearing is warranted and she issued her decision on July 29, 2025. If substantiated, the allegations could amount to a serious breach of police conduct in relation to fundamental rights. Everyone is protected against arbitrary detention, from unreasonable searches and certain rights arise from arrest or detention under sections 8, 9 and 10 of the Charter. Additionally, a public interest hearing may shed light on issues of a systemic nature that extend beyond the employee and those directly involved in this case.

Furthermore, the active shooter exercise held on November 12, 2024, attracted media attention. The complainant reported that other employees had been affected by the conduct of the exercise. Media articles also mention that other individuals were disturbed by the event. A public hearing will enable anyone, especially those who may feel impacted by the incidents, to follow the progress and the outcome of the complaint in a transparent manner, and even to be heard if they so wish.

On July 29, 2025, the MPCC served a summons on the CFPM that includes a list of documents and evidence to be submitted. After granting two extensions of time to the CFPM, the MPCC finally received the documents and evidence requested from the CFPM on October 3, 2025. The documentation is currently under review and planning for the Public Interest Hearing is underway.

Updates on the progress of the hearing will be posted on our website, under the header “Timeline”

This complaint originated in 2016 with a Canadian Forces member who felt that the Canadian Forces National Investigation Service Western Region (CFNIS WR) had conducted a negligent investigation of a house fire on Canadian Forces Base Edmonton involving the complainant’s ex-spouse and their minor children. Despite conclusions by the insurance company and the Fire Marshal’s office that the fire was deliberately set, and the discovery of an apparent suicide note from the ex-spouse, no charges were laid at that time.

This case first came to the MPCC for review in 2018. Upon review, the former MPCC Chairperson, Hilary McCormack, determined there was evidence of a crime that ought to be reinvestigated. She therefore recommended that the CFPM reopen the case and have the house fire reinvestigated by an outside police service. The CFPM opted to refer the matter to CFNIS WR, but with a new investigative team headed by a seconded Royal Canadian Mounted Police superintendent. The MPCC Chairperson put the MPCC’s review of the complaint into abeyance pending completion of the reinvestigation and any resulting judicial proceedings. The reinvestigation led to charges of arson and attempted murder against the complainant’s ex-spouse, who was convicted in March 2023. The current MPCC Chairperson then directed that the MPCC resume its investigation into this complaint.

In September, the MPCC Chairperson declared a public interest investigation into the complaint.

In December 2023, the MPCC filed a judicial review application in Federal Court to compel the disclosure by the CFPM of missing and redacted information in their disclosure to the MPCC. During 2024, written pleadings were prepared and there were negotiations over a confidentiality motion to protect certain personal information in the materials to be filed with the Court.

In 2024, MPCC investigators conducted interviews and completed their investigation assessment report, which was reviewed and approved by the Chairperson.

In 2025, the MPCC’s confidentiality motion was granted by the Federal Court, and the written pleadings were completed for the judicial review application. The CFPM disclosed some of the material sought by the MPCC in the judicial review application. The remaining issues in the judicial review are being set down for hearing in the Federal Court. Work on concurrently finalizing the MPCC’s Interim Report continues.

Updates on the progress of the investigation will be posted on our website, under the header “Timeline”

In November 2022, the then-Interim Chairperson decided that the MPCC would conduct a joint public interest investigation into three separate complaints concerning the actions of members of the CFNIS as well as members of a military police detachment located on a Canadian Forces Base. The complaints all relate to the military police’s handling of a sexual assault investigation. Six weeks after charges were laid, the accused, a Canadian Forces member, died by suicide.

MPCC-2022-017 & MPCC-2022-041:

The first two conduct complaints were brought by close relatives of the deceased Canadian Forces member. The Canadian Forces member was accused of sexually assaulting his past girlfriend on two separate occasions. The relatives of the deceased Canadian Forces member complained that CFNIS investigators failed to interview, or receive evidence from, the accused prior to deciding to lay sexual assault charges against him and that the CFNIS failed to conduct an impartial and thorough investigation and that there was a “rush to judgment” in the investigation. The MPCC proceeded to examine three issues in its public interest investigation:

1. Did the CFNIS investigative team fail to seek an interview with the accused?
2. Did the CFNIS investigative team fail to conduct a sufficiently thorough investigation prior to arresting and charging the accused?
3. Did the CFNIS investigation involve a rush to judgment and suffer from confirmation bias?

MPCC-2022-043:

The third conduct complaint related to the initial intake of the sexual assault allegations against a Canadian Forces member. This complaint came from a former military police member who witnessed the conduct of military police members at the local detachment when the sexual assault was initially reported. He complained that the military police members failed to record the victim’s initial police interview, despite there being the means to do so, and that inexperienced military police members were assigned to conduct the interview. In addition, the complaint alleged that the victim was never asked if she preferred to be interviewed by a woman; that unprofessional comments were made about the victim; that a Sergeant under the influence of alcohol attended the detachment and participated in the planning of the investigation; and that the military police permitted a support person to attend the interview who was also a witness.

In this case, the CFPM’s office of Professional Standards commenced an investigation into the complaints, concurrently with the MPCC’s launching of the public interest investigation. Exceptionally, the MPCC agreed to defer witness interviews until the completion of the Professional Standards investigation. That Professional Standards investigation concluded in February 2024, and the MPCC proceeded with witness interviews. Twelve interviews were completed in 2024, and MPCC investigators prepared two investigation assessment reports.

In 2025, the MPCC prepared and issued its Interim Reports. The MPCC now awaits the CFPM’s Notice of Action following which the Final Reports will be issued and posted on our website.

Updates on the progress of the investigation will be posted on our website, under the header “Timeline”

The MPCC received a complaint from (MGen) (retired) Dany Fortin in January 2023 regarding the handling of a CFNIS investigation that led to his sexual assault prosecution, from which he was acquitted. MGen (retired) Fortin asserts that the MP investigation was biased and partial. He contends that the charges were laid despite insufficient evidence and asserts that his prosecution was influenced by undue external pressure to uncritically accept the alleged victim’s allegations at face value, to his detriment.

In April 2023, the MPCC Chairperson launched a Public Interest Investigation due to the seriousness of the allegations, the potential involvement of senior officials and military officers and the broader public interest concerns raised in the complaint.

In October 2023, MGen (retired) Fortin formally withdrew his complaint through a letter from his legal counsel. After consideration, the MPCC Chairperson decided that the MPCC will continue its public interest investigation, despite the withdrawal of the complaint. Read the Decision to Continue MPCC Public Interest Investigation Despite Withdrawal of the Complaint by the Complainant.

The Public Interest Investigation focused on two key questions:

1. Whether CFNIS Eastern Region investigators conducted a thorough and rigorous investigation into the sexual assault complaint filed against MGen (retired) Fortin.
2. Whether external considerations influenced the CFNIS ER investigation.

This Public Interest Investigation has identified serious deficiencies in the conduct of the CFNIS investigation. Although the evidence does not support the allegation of improper external influence, the investigation was nonetheless compromised by tunnel vision, exhibited signs of investigative bias, inadequate supervisory oversight, and a failure to uphold core investigative standards. These shortcomings are not mere administrative oversights; they represent significant failures that erode public trust in military policing. Recommendations were made to strengthen investigative capacity and ensure that future investigations are conducted with impartiality, rigour, and transparency.

In October 2025, the CFPM provided their Notice of Action in response to the MPCC’s Interim Report issued in July 2025. The Notice of Action included comments on the MPCC’s findings and recommendations. Of 16 recommendations, the MPCC Chairperson considers that only 3 were fully accepted by the CFPM, 10 were partially accepted, and 3 were not accepted at all.

As outlined in the Final Report, while many of the CFPM’s comments expressed a general intent to align military police policies and procedures with Canadian best policing practices, they lacked specificity. They did not identify which military police policies and procedures would be reviewed or how updates would reflect recommendations. Many responses only partially addressed recommendations, leaving gaps and failing to demonstrate full institutional accountability or commitment to meaningful change.

The full Final Report, issued on November 27, 2025, can be found on the MPCC’s website: Chairperson's Final Report Concerning the Fortin Public Interest Investigation (MPCC-2023-006)

In December 2024, the MPCC Chairperson launched a public interest investigation into a complaint from Lieutenant-General (LGen) Steven Whelan that alleges that an investigation by the CFNIS, was flawed, unprofessional, and incompetent. The complainant cites several examples of substandard practices by CFNIS members, including: inadequately documenting interactions with the alleged victim; showing bias in favour of the alleged victim; failing to ask crucial questions during interviews; improperly handling evidence; failing to adequately investigate potential conflicts of interest with witnesses; failing to interview key witnesses; and failing to properly conduct and disclose the interview of one witness.

The complainant suggests that some shortcomings might have been deliberate due to improper influence from the chain of command and a desire for a specific outcome. He refers to the charges against him as “coerced charges.” He names the past CFPM and his past (DCFPM) amongst the subjects listed in his complaint. He claims that they failed to properly supervise the CFNIS investigation. He also believes that the former DCFPM provided him with false information, misrepresenting the facts of his case.

The complainant also submits that “media leaks” occurred in his case, while the investigation was still ongoing. He claims that the former CFPM and DCFPM failed to investigate the “leaks” or to order an impact assessment to determine whether they compromised the complainant’s rights. He suggests this alleged failure may indicate complicity in enabling the “media leaks.”

Given the seriousness of the allegations, the systemic implications, the involvement of senior members of the military police and the public interest, the Chairperson determined that it was in the public interest to address the concerns raised in this complaint in a greater public forum rather than transferring the complaint to the Chief of the Defence Staff to be dealt with in the first instance.

In February 2025, the DCFPM provided initial disclosure to the MPCC.

The MPCC conducted a detailed review of the complaint and the disclosure received. Its investigation plan identified 4 main allegations in this complaint, with a total of 14 subjects named. A number of additional disclosure requests were subsequently made. The MPCC also sought additional information from various sources, including the complainant.

Once the disclosure was received in full and reviewed, the MPCC began the interview phase of its investigation. The complainant was interviewed in November 2025, and other interviews are planned for early 2026.

Updates on the progress of the investigation will be posted on our website, under the header “Timeline”

In June 2023, the complainant requested that the MPCC review his complaint concerning military police handling of his complaint about alleged abuse of authority in a recruitment process in 2021. Specifically, he states that the military police did not carry out a proper investigation and did not provide him with updates as they should have.

In the first instance, the office of Professional Standards (PS) of the CFPM concluded in June 2023 that the military police’s investigation was thorough and properly addressed the complainant’s concerns. They also determined that the complainant was not entitled to updates on the investigation, since disclosure to a “third-party complainant” is restricted.

After reviewing the documents on file, the MPCC concluded that military police properly exercised their discretion as it was consistent with applicable laws and orders and that they thoroughly investigated the complainant’s allegations. The complainant was not the victim in this case and, therefore, was not entitled to detailed updates about the investigation due to privacy concerns.

However, to ensure transparency and consistency, the MPCC recommended that the military police clarify its relevant policies to ensure all complainants are notified about the closure of their files. If a decision is made not to notify a complainant about file closure, the reasons for this choice should be clearly documented in the file. The CFPM accepted this recommendation.

More information on this case is available on our website in the following section: Conduct Case MPCC-2023-014 Summary

In 2023, a former CFNIS Sergeant filed a complaint alleging that the CFNIS failed to investigate reported abuse of a subordinate, instead allegedly diverted the matter to a unit-level administrative investigation, purportedly to shield the individuals implicated in the complaint.

The office of Professional Standards of the CFPM reviewed the complaint in the first instance and found that the allegations primarily concerned leadership and morale issues within the chain of command, already been addressed through a unit-level administrative investigation. It concluded that the allegations did not involve “policing duties or functions” and, therefore, was not a valid conduct complaint.

In 2024, the complainant referred the case to the MPCC for review. The MPCC found that the CFNIS’s determination regarding the criminal nature of allegations constituted a policing duty or function, while the unit-level administrative investigation fell outside the scope of the MPCC’s jurisdiction.

The MPCC’s review focused solely on the CFNIS’s decision not to initiate a criminal or service offence investigation. The MPCC found that the CFNIS had examined all relevant documentation, identified and interviewed key witnesses, briefed senior leadership, sought legal advice, and kept the complainant informed throughout the process. It concluded that the CFNIS had acted reasonably in discharging their duty.

In response to the MPCC’s Interim Report, the CFPM declined to issue a Notice of Action, citing an interpretation of no right of review under the National Defence Act. In its Final Report, the MPCC reiterated that its review was strictly confined to the CFNIS’s decision not to initiate a criminal or service offence investigation, which is a core policing duty, and did not address the unit-level administrative investigation.

More information on this case is available on our website in the following section: Conduct Case MPCC-2023-047 Summary

The complainant alleged that he was not treated fairly on the basis of racial profiling during a roadside stop when his driver’s licence was suspended without valid grounds.

While the MPCC concluded that there was insufficient evidence to determine that the complainant’s licence was suspended and his vehicle seized without valid grounds or as a result of racial profiling, it nonetheless acknowledged the significance of the complainant’s concerns.

The MPCC recognized that discrimination, racial profiling, and both conscious and unconscious bias are real and deeply felt realities for many members of racialized communities in Canada.

The MPCC also made several recommendations aimed at reinforcing professional standards and procedural compliance, such as reminding the subject member of the importance of consistently using the Mobile Video Recording System. The CFPM accepted all recommendations.

More information on this case is available on our website in the following section: Conduct Case MPCC-2023-061 Summary

The complainant alleged that the CFNIS wrongfully investigated and charged him in retaliation for reporting what he described as “covered-up treason, mutiny, and murder,” along with “triad connections” and other matters of national security.

The CFPM’s office of Professional Standards concluded that the complaint was frivolous, vexatious, or made in bad faith. However, it failed to provide sufficient reasons to support this determination. The file was closed with the office of Professional Standards noting that the complainant had sent numerous emails deemed “inappropriate” and “not reasonably purposeful.”

After review, the MPCC agreed with the outcome reached by the office of Professional Standards. The complaint was found vexatious, as there was no factual basis upon which the MPCC could proceed with a review. Between February and August 2025, the complainant submitted over 116 emails and numerous voicemails to the MPCC. Despite repeated requests for clarification, the complainant failed to provide any meaningful or relevant information. His submissions consisted largely of repeated assertions, fragmented quotes, Twitter screenshots, irrelevant images, and links to unrelated articles.

The MPCC conducted an analysis of the relevant jurisprudence on vexatious litigation to assess the nature of the complaint. It concluded that the complaint met several established criteria: it served an improper purpose; included unsupported allegations of conspiracy, fraud, and misconduct; and constituted a hopeless proceeding, meaning that many of the remedies sought fell outside of the MPCC’s statutory authority. Despite the serious nature of some of his allegations, the complainant failed to present factual information that would allow the MPCC to consider the matter within its mandate. Accordingly, the complaint was determined to be vexatious, and the file was closed.

More information on this case is available on our website in the following section: Conduct Case MPCC-2025-018 Summary

The complainant, a former Canadian ranger, filed a complaint on October 4, 2019, alleging that the military police failed to thoroughly investigate his allegations of fraud and harassment by his patrol chain of command and failed to report Code of Service Discipline, constitutional, and human rights violations.

The MPCC received his complaint on October 4, 2019, and the same day referred it to the CFPM’s office of Professional Standards for review in the first instance.

In their decision of December 19, 2019, the office of Professional Standards declined to initiate an investigation citing insufficient evidence of military police misconduct. Their decision was made under section 250.28 (2) (b) and (c) of the National Defence Act, which allows the CFPM to direct that no investigation of a complaint be started or that an investigation be ended if the matter is better addressed under another process or if further investigation is unnecessary or impracticable. The office of Professional Standards noted that the military police had investigated the fraud allegations but found no suspects neither evidence of fraud. They also observed that the military police are prohibited from investigating personal harassment.

On December 11, 2024, the complainant referred the matter to the MPCC for review. After thoroughly examining all relevant materials and providing both the complainant and the subjects of the complaint with opportunities to submit additional evidence and representations, the MPCC issued its Interim Report on September 2, 2025.

The MPCC determined that the military police conducted a reasonable investigation of the fraud allegations and reasonably considered and responded to the complainant’s allegations of threats, harassment, Code of Service Discipline, and human rights violations. The military police took several investigative steps, including questioning potential witnesses and collecting relevant documentation from the complainant and other sources. The investigation was concluded due to a lack of evidence supporting the allegations.

The MPCC also noted that the military police informed the complainant that their investigation would focus on the fraud allegations, given their mandate. The complainant was already pursuing other avenues to address the other issues.

For these reasons, the MPCC concluded that the investigative discretion was reasonably applied and appropriately documented.

The MPCC nevertheless observed that no follow-up occurred when the military police requested assistance from the (CFNIS) for this case. Therefore, the MPCC recommended that the CFPM remind the military police members involved to follow up on any assistance requests submitted to the CFNIS and document the outcome or note on the file their reasons for not doing so.

The CFPM sent the Notice of Action on October 14, 2025, and accepted the recommendation.

The MPCC Final Report was issued on October 30, 2025.

More information on this case is available on our website in the following section: Conduct Case MPCC-2019-037 Summary

The complainant was the subject of a conduct complaint investigated by the CFPM’s office of Professional Standards. The complaint took 18 months for the office of Professional Standards to investigate – 6 months beyond the one-year time limit for the office of Professional Standards investigations as set out in the National Defence Act. The complainant alleged that the CFPM exceeded the statutory time limit for disposing of complaints by the office of Professional Standards. The complainant further alleged that the CFPM failed to send a monthly case status letter one month as required by the National Defence Act.

As the complaint was made personally against the CFPM, it was sent for disposition in the first instance by the Chief of the Defence Staff who concluded that the conduct of the office of PS investigations did not constitute a “policing duty or function” and therefore the complaint fell outside the scope of the complaints process.

On review, the MPCC disagreed with the Chief of the Defence Staff jurisdictional assessment. The MPCC noted that “the conduct of an investigation” was expressly listed in the regulatory definition of what constitutes a “policing duty or function.” Applying the modern principle of legislative interpretation, the MPCC concluded that the complaint fell within the scope of the complaints process.

On the merits of the matter, the MPCC concluded that the complaint was substantiated. The MPCC reviewed the relevant disclosure and the information provided by the complainant – the CFPM declined to respond to questions from the MPCC. The available information clearly established that it took more than one year to dispose of the complaint of which the complainant was a subject. It was also determined that there was no other ongoing police investigation or judicial proceeding which might have exempted the complaint from the statutory time limit of one year. Regarding the missed monthly case status letter, while the office of Professional Standards acknowledged and explained this lapse in the next monthly letter, the gap nonetheless breached the National Defence Act requirements.

The MPCC recommended that the CFPM review the office of Professional Standards internal processes and resource allocation with a view to identify areas for improvement, implement appropriate changes and establish ongoing regular audits of the office of Professional Standards internal process. In the Notice of Action, the Chief of the Defence Staff continued to disagree with the MPCC on the question of jurisdiction in this matter but acknowledged that its recommendations offered constructive suggestions for improving compliance with statutory requirements.

The MPCC therefore wrote the CFPM inviting her to respond to the recommendations. In response, the CFPM, after reiterating their position on jurisdiction, said simply that she would review the recommendations and “take action where appropriate.” In the Final Report, the MPCC expressed disappointment with this lack of a substantive response by the CFPM to the recommendations.

More information on this case is available on our website in the following section: Conduct Case MPCC-2024-020A Summary

The complainant complained that he was wrongfully detained, handcuffed, and discriminated against by members of the military police.

In 2021, the complainant was working on a military base when his truck hit a security gate. When military police ran his name through the Canadian Police Information Centre, someone with the same name and a similar date of birth was found to have an immigration warrant. Without verifying the warrant or noting the difference in the birth date, a military police member handcuffed the complainant and placed him in an interview room in the detachment under the guard of another officer. When he was later released and asked for explanations, the complainant states that he was threatened with force and wrongfully denied proof of the warrant.

The MPCC did not agree that the military police wrongfully denied proof of the warrant – since the warrant was not for the complainant, they could not show it to him. The MPCC found, however, that the complainant had been improperly handcuffed and detained in part because of racial profiling.

In coming to this conclusion, the MPCC considered that the military police officer did not demonstrate due diligence, acted without regard to all the facts known to him, and that elements of his partner’s evidence were not credible. Looked at in context, including racial jokes made about the complainant and the discourteous treatment he received after the erroneous detention, the MPCC concluded that racial profiling contributed to the treatment reserved to the complainant. .

Finally, though it did not find that the complainant was threatened with force, the MPCC found that two military police members intimidated the complainant in a way that amounted to discourteous treatment in breach of the Military Police Professional Code of Conduct.

The MPCC made 20 recommendations. Some of them targeted the individual military police involved, including additional training in investigative detention, the use of force, anti-racism, unconscious bias, and de-escalation tactics.

The MPCC also noted that the guidance given to all military police members on investigative detention did not accurately reflect the state of the law and recommended that they be carefully reviewed and updated. Interim measures were recommended in the meantime to prevent further such situations.

The MPCC also made several system recommendations such as the adoption of military police orders or policy instruments to prevent racial profiling and other discriminatory treatment, along with regular, ongoing training for all members in cultural competency, unconscious bias, and anti-racism.

The MPCC noted that this incident was mishandled at all levels, including by the office of Professional Standards who wrongfully asserted that the complainant had received an apology, and moreover was never interviewed in the investigation. The MPCC recommended that the complainant receive an official apology and also that complainants be interviewed as a best practice.

The CFPM provided the Notice of Action on October 27, 2025. Of the 20 recommendations, the MPCC considered 5 to have been accepted, 7 partially accepted, and 8 not accepted.

This case underscores that accountability in military policing requires more than addressing individual misconduct: it demands systemic safeguards against racial profiling through clear policies, training, effective supervision, and transparent corrective action. Unlike major Canadian police services that have adopted the BIAS FREE Framework, the military police lack comparable tools.

The CFPM’s Notice of Action provided vague or insufficient responses to most of the MPCC’s recommendations. Although many of the CFPM’s comments expressed a general intent to align military police policies and procedures with Canadian best policing practices, such alignment is already an expected standard. As a matter of course, the CFPM is responsible for keeping policies current with established policing best practices. A general commitment to do so does not, on its own, demonstrate what specific actions or measures, if any, will be taken in response to the MPCC’s recommendations.

A redacted version of the MPCC’s Final Report in this case is available on our website in the following section: Final Report (MPCC-2021-010)

In May 2023, the complainant filed a complaint with the MPCC regarding the conduct of military police members in the handling of her report about missing or stolen artwork. She asserts that the investigation was not thorough and complete and expressed dissatisfaction with the courtesy of military police members.

The office of Professional Standards of the CFPM reviewed the complaint in the first instance. The office of Professional Standards determined that the military police investigation lacked thoroughness and completeness, insofar as (i) some email exchanges between the complainant and the military police investigator were not included in the investigation file, and (ii) the military police detachment chain of command reopened the file, assigning a new lead investigator; thus, by implication, the initial investigation conducted by the subject military police member could not have been complete and thorough. The office of Professional Standards also determined that the email evidence did not support claims of impoliteness or disrespect by military police members and noted that retrieving recorded phone conversations was unlikely due to the lack of identified individuals and the time elapsed.

In April 2024, the Office of the CFPM decided to end its investigation under paragraphs 250.28(2)(b) and (c) of the National Defence Act as one allegation had been referred to the military police detachment, and the other was deemed not reasonably practicable to pursue. In May 2024, the MPCC Chairperson formally expressed disagreement with this decision, asserting that the complaint was a proper conduct complaint warranting a determination on its merits under the National Defence Act police oversight regime. In September 2024, the CFPM reaffirmed the earlier decision, citing an ongoing police investigation which addresses the allegations.

The MPCC remains concerned that the approach of terminating complaints without investigating them undermines the accountability and transparency mandated by the National Defence Act. It advised the complainant that the April 2024 decision did not originate from the MPCC and informed her of her right to request a review as the Office of the CFPM did not inform her of this right when closing her file. In September 2024, the complainant exercised this right and referred the complaint to the MPCC for review.

Following this review, the MPCC found that the military police investigation into missing or stolen artwork was inadequate only in that the subject military police member failed to document his investigative steps and did not include relevant email communications in the police investigative file. The overall scope and quality of the investigation were reasonable in the circumstances, considering the specific request for assistance and the constraints imposed by COVID-19. The MPCC also found that the allegation that military police members were impolite or disrespectful in their communications with the complainant is not supported by the available evidence.

The MPCC made 4 recommendations to the CFPM to address both individual conduct and broader systemic and procedural deficiencies:

• Reminding all military police members – especially the subject – of their obligation to document all investigative steps and ensure relevant emails are promptly added to the investigation file;
• Reminding all military police members – especially the subject – of the importance of documenting every contact in an open investigation, including notifying parties when a matter is closed and confirming their understanding;
• Reminding the subject military police member of the best practices and the requirements for documenting investigative and/or administrative activities in both the investigation file and police notebook, in accordance with the relevant Canadian Forces Military Police Orders; and
• Ensuring all military police members receive training on communicating clearly with complainants regarding the status of investigations.

In December 2025, the MPCC received the CFPM’s Notice of Action. Of the 4 recommendations, the MPCC considers that 3 were accepted by the CFPM, while 1 was partially accepted. For the accepted recommendations, the CFPM stated only that “action [is] to be taken.” Although these responses lacked detail, the recommendations themselves were sufficiently specific to indicate the required actions. The remaining recommendation is considered partially accepted, as the CFPM’s response did not provide enough information to determine whether it fully addressed the substance of the recommendation.

More information on this case is available on our website in the following section: Conduct Case MPCC-2023-030 Summary

The complainant submitted a conduct complaint to the MPCC regarding alleged military police misconduct during his July 2022 arrest. The complaint was sent to the CFPM’s office of Professional Standards on June 2, 2023, and the office of Professional Standards completed its review on October 7, 2025 – two years and four months later. Before that review was completed, the complainant filed a second conduct complaint with the MPCC, arguing that the CFPM and the office of Professional Standards failed to dispose of his initial complaint within the 12 months period required by s. 250.26(1) of the National Defence Act.

Because the then-CFPM was the subject of the complaint, it was forwarded to the Chief of the Defence Staff for disposition in the first instance, in accordance with National Defence Act s. 250.26(2). In a written decision dated November 30, 2024, the Chief of the Defence Staff concluded that the complaint “does not meet the requirements of section 250.18(1) of the National Defence Act ” because it does not relate to the CFPM’s conduct “in the performance of any of the policing duties or functions” as prescribed in section 2(1) of the Complaints About the Conduct of Members of the Military Police Regulations. In other words, the Chief of the Defence Staff determined that the complainant’s allegations did not relate to activities that can be made the subject of a conduct complaint under the National Defence Act.

On January 6, 2025, the complainant requested a review of his complaint. He disagreed with the Chief of the Defence Staff conclusion that the matter fell outside of the definition of policing duties and functions in the Regulations, noting that “responding to a complaint” is expressly listed as a policing duty. He further argued that, as the CFPM is a member of the military police, the complaint process applies. In his request, he also asserted that the Chief of the Defence Staff was avoiding accountability and had improperly characterized his request as a delay rather than a complaint about the missed statutory deadline.

The MPCC concluded, contrary to the Chief of the Defence Staff, that investigations constitute “policing duties or functions,” and that this complaint is therefore receivable under the National Defence Act. The MPCC further concluded that the evidence clearly demonstrates that the CFPM exceeded the statutory deadline for disposing of complaints.

In reaching this conclusion, the assigned MPCC member was informed by the reasons written by a colleague in MPCC-2024-020A, which also involved a complaint concerning a file that had exceeded the statutory timeline. The MPCC Interim Reports in both matters received the identical response from the CFPM and the Chief of the Defence Staff.

In both cases, the MPCC recommended that the current CFPM (appointed in December 2024) undertake a comprehensive review of internal processes and resource allocation within the office of Professional Standards regarding the handling of complaints. The MPCC further recommended that the CFPM implement any necessary reforms arising from this review and conduct regular audits of PS’s performance in managing the complaints process. These recommendations were intended to address indications of a broad pattern of delay rather than an isolated lapse.

The MPCC Interim Report in this case was sent to the Chief of the Defence Staff in accordance with section 250.32(3) of the National Defence Act. Though the Chief of the Defence Staff disagreed that the MPCC had jurisdiction in this matter, she acknowledged that the recommendations were constructive and agreed to forward them to the CFPM for review and consideration.

The CFPM declined to provide a Notice of Action, stating that, in her view, the National Defence Act does not require one in these circumstances. She indicated only that she would review the recommendations and “take action where appropriate.” While the statutory obligation to issue a Notice of Action under section 250.51 rested with the Chief of the Defence Staff (who provided one, referring the matter to the CFPM), the CFPM’s refusal to provide a substantive response limited MPCC’s ability to determine what steps, if any, would be taken in response to the recommendations.

The MPCC concluded that this outcome was concerning, particularly in light of its finding of persistent delays in the handling of complaints by the office of Professional Standards, which have the potential to undermine public confidence in the complaints process.

More information on this case is available on our website in the following section: Conduct Case MPCC-2024-046 Summary

The complainant alleges that the military police wrongfully informed her that they do not accompany victims of family violence to retrieve their belongings from their residence.

During its investigation, the MPCC focused on the broader question of whether the subject member unreasonably refused to assist a potential victim of intimate partner violence. The MPCC found that the subject member did not exercise reasonable due diligence in providing assistance to the complainant in this case.

The complainant contacted the military police detachment to request help retrieving her belongings from the residence she shared with her former spouse.

A military police member arranged a time the next day to retrieve her belongings. The next day, the complainant stated that she was informed by the subject military police member that the military police members 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 military police members 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 CFPM office of Professional Standards reviewed the complaint in the first instance but did not interview the subjects or the Complainant. The office of Professional Standards 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 military police members. Therefore, the office of Professional Standards 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 Military Police 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 their Notice of Action 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 military police 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.

More information on this case is available on our website in the following section: Conduct Case MPCC-2023-019 Summary

The complainant, a member of the Canadian Forces, was arrested by Special Constables of a municipal public transit service for an alleged assault, prompting the military police to create a shadow file and notify his chain of command.

The complainant alleged that two military police members fabricated information in their reports and that a third impeded his attempts to serve a subpoena and suppressed or delayed records requested via the Access to Information Act.

The office of Professional Standards of the CFPM reviewed the complaint in the first instance and found the first two allegations unsupported by the evidence. The last one about the Access to Information Act was not found to be a police function.

The complainant requested that the MPCC review the office of Professional Standards’ treatment of his complaint claiming procedural unfairness because “findings were finalized without disclosure, without solicitation of representation and considered matters that were not within the scope of the complaint.”

In its assessment of this complaint, the MPCC concluded that procedural fairness was provided and that none of the allegations were supported by the evidence. While noting that Subject 3 could have been more helpful to the complainant, the MPCC found no misconduct.

In response to the MPCC’s Interim Report, the CFPM noted that the MPCC’s findings were consistent with that of the Office of Professional Standards and that no identifiable action was required.

More information on this case is available on our website in the following section: Conduct Case MPCC-2022-050 Summary