Search
Full-text search across every published incident. Officer names are never indexed — search hits match the redacted summary, agency name, tribunal citation, and the controlled-vocabulary fields (incident type, finding, disposition).
blessure_grave_intervention_policiere_autre · 2024-Q1
blessure_grave_intervention_policiere_autre · 2024-Q1
deces_intervention_policiere_autre · 2023-Q4
deces_intervention_policiere_autre · 2023-Q4
deces_intervention_policiere_autre · 2023-Q4
deces_intervention_policiere_autre · 2023-Q4
deces_intervention_policiere_autre · 2024-Q1
deces_intervention_policiere_autre · 2024-Q1
blessure_grave_intervention_policiere_vehicule_implique · 2024-Q1
blessure_grave_intervention_policiere_autre · 2024-Q1
deces_intervention_policiere_autre · 2023-Q4
deces_intervention_policiere_autre · 2023-Q4
blessure_grave_intervention_policiere_autre · 2024-Q1
police_misconduct · 2021-Q2
The Military Police Complaints Commission investigated an interference complaint filed by two Military Police members against two superior officers in their chain of command. The complaint arose from a welfare check conducted in mid-2021 at the residence of a Military Police officer whose young children were found unsupervised. Following the welfare check, a criminal investigation was opened for alleged child abandonment and failure to provide necessaries of life. The complainants alleged that the subject officers improperly interfered with the investigation. The MPCC found all allegations of improper interference not substantiated, concluding the actions were reasonable and undertaken for legitimate purposes. The investigation did not result in charges.
police_misconduct · 2021-Q1
The Military Police Complaints Commission investigated an interference complaint filed by two military police members alleging that their chain of command improperly interfered with a military police investigation into a fellow military police officer who was found to be impaired in public with their children. Allegations included improper alterations to the investigation file, pressuring investigators not to recommend charges, failure to refer the matter to CFNIS, failure to notify Professional Standards, and pressuring members not to report the incident. All six allegations of improper interference were found not substantiated. The Chief of the Defence Staff noted no further action was required.
police_misconduct · 2021-Q1
police_misconduct · 2021-Q1
police_misconduct · 2021-Q1
police_misconduct · 2021-Q1
The Military Police Complaints Commission (MPCC) designated conduct complaint MPCC 2022-001 as a Public Interest Investigation (PII) under s. 250.38(1) of the National Defence Act. The complaint concerns allegations that the commanding officer and sergeant-major of a Military Police Unit gave preferential treatment to a Military Police Officer (MPO) by failing to lay charges and covering up incidents of the MPO's alcohol-related misconduct, including an attempted impaired driving incident in early 2021 and a child welfare concern in mid-2021. The complaint was joined to the existing PII covering MPCC files 2021-012, 2021-017, and 2021-026, which raised similar concerns about the same MPU leadership.
police_misconduct · 2021-Q1