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).
deces_intervention_policiere_autre · 2023-Q4
blessure_intervention_policiere_arme_a_feu_utilisee_par_un_policier · 2024-Q2
deces_intervention_policiere_autre · 2024-Q2
deces_intervention_policiere_autre · 2024-Q2
blessure_grave_intervention_policiere_autre · 2024-Q2
deces_intervention_policiere_autre · 2023-Q4
deces_intervention_policiere_autre · 2024-Q1
blessure_grave_intervention_policiere_vehicule_implique · 2024-Q1
blessure_grave_intervention_policiere_autre · 2024-Q1
blessure_grave_intervention_policiere_autre · 2024-Q2
deces_intervention_policiere_autre · 2023-Q4
blessure_intervention_policiere_arme_a_feu_utilisee_par_un_policier · 2024-Q2
blessure_intervention_policiere_arme_a_feu_utilisee_par_un_policier · 2024-Q2
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-Q2
The Military Police Complaints Commission investigated an interference complaint filed by two Military Police members against a Warrant Officer and a superior officer in their chain of command. The complaint arose from a welfare check conducted 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 superior officer improperly interfered by contacting a family member of the subject officer. The MPCC found all allegations of improper interference not substantiated, concluding the directions were reasonable and undertaken for legitimate purposes, and the contact did not interfere with the investigation. The investigation ultimately did not result in charges.
police_misconduct · 2021-Q1
police_misconduct · 2021-Q1
police_misconduct · 2021-Q1
police_misconduct · 2021-Q1
The MPCC initiated a Public Interest Investigation 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 regarding an alleged child welfare investigation involving the same officer.
police_misconduct · 2021-Q1