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-Q3
blessure_grave_intervention_policiere_autre · 2024-Q1
deces_intervention_policiere_autre · 2024-Q1
deces_intervention_policiere_autre · 2024-Q1
police_misconduct · 2021-Q1
police_misconduct · 2021-Q2
The Military Police Complaints Commission investigated an interference complaint filed by two Military Police members (a Corporal and a Sergeant) against a Warrant Officer and a Captain in their MP Unit 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 Warrant Officer improperly interfered by directing a 'tactical pause' and seeking to transfer the investigation file to the General Investigation Section, and that the Captain improperly interfered by making a personal call to a family member of the subject officer. The MPCC found all three allegations of improper interference not substantiated, concluding the directions were reasonable and undertaken for legitimate purposes, and the call to the family member did not interfere with the investigation. The CFNIS ultimately assumed the investigation, which did not result in charges.
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-Q2
As part of MPCC Public Interest Investigation 2022-001, the MPCC examined allegations that Military Police Unit leadership improperly directed subordinate MPs to pause a child welfare investigation and failed to lay Criminal Code charges (Failure to Provide Necessaries of Life, Child Abandonment) against a Military Police Officer, potentially delaying intervention by child welfare authorities. The conduct of the MPU commanding officer and sergeant-major in handling a child welfare check and subsequent investigation in mid-2021 is under review.
police_misconduct · 2021-Q1
The MPCC initiated a Public Interest Investigation in early August 2021 into the handling by a Military Police Unit of an investigation involving one of its own members who allegedly appeared intoxicated while attempting to drive with children. Complaints alleged that unit leadership covered up the misconduct, altered investigation reports without the investigator's knowledge, improperly directed subordinates not to report the incident, failed to refer the matter to the CFNIS, and failed to report to the Office of Professional Standards. A further related interference complaint was filed in mid-July 2021 regarding an alleged child welfare investigation involving the same officer.
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. 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
deces_intervention_policiere_arme_a_feu_utilisee_par_un_policier · 2025-Q1
blessure_intervention_policiere_arme_a_feu_utilisee_par_un_policier · 2024-Q3
blessure_grave_intervention_policiere_vehicule_implique · 2025-Q4
deces_intervention_policiere_arme_a_feu_utilisee_par_un_policier · 2025-Q1
deces_intervention_policiere_vehicule_implique · 2025-Q3
deces_intervention_policiere_arme_a_feu_utilisee_par_un_policier · 2025-Q3