Canadian Military Police Lawyers
The military justice system heavily depends on the role of military police (MP). They have the same authority in regard to arrests, searches, and custody as their civilian police courterparts. The Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) held that members of parliament (MPs) had a legal obligation to carry out their duties in an impartial and independent manner from civilian police. This is to avoid perpetuating misconception that MPs are government agents when we are conducting investigations. Additional safeguards against interfering with MPs’ inquiries are provided by the National Defence Act.
What is the Military Police Complaints Commission?
The Military Police Complaints Commission addresses allegations of interference in military police operations. Thie aim of this is to bring awareness to military personnel about these kinds of issues. Although the Commission receives more conduct-related complaints, the reports’ purpose is to educate and inform about potential remedies.
- CP24: Civil Sexual Assault Lawsuit at St. Michael’s in Toronto
- CityNews: Jordan Donich comments to CityNews regarding challenges with Sexual Assault Trials in Toronto
- CityNews: Jordan Donich provides expert commentary to CityNews regarding Sexual Assault Prosecution.
- CBC Radio: Interview with Mayor John Tory and Jordan Donich on CBC Radio.
- Breakfast Television: Role of Mental Health in Court Proceedings.
- Global News National: Bruce McArthur will not serve consecutive sentences.
- CTV News National: Handgun ban supported by majority of Canadians: Nanos survey.
- CP24: Sentencing Hearing for Chair Girl.
Are Military police the same as civilian police?
Military police are not the same as civilian police. They are two distinct bodies. Military police (MPs) operate under their own unique and distinct set of rules, powers, authority, and obligations. While both entities exist with the intent to maintain a sense of law and order, MPs focus specifically on the internal discipline, security, and law enforcement within the armed forces. This distinction shows us the unique and dynamic nature of military policing.
Unique Act and Powers
MPs have a distinct and separate legislative framework that equips them with a specific set of powers, authority, and responsibilities. In Canada, this includes operating under the National Defence Act and other relevant military regulations. These laws give MPs the power and authority to enforce military discipline, conduct investigations, and perform policing duties within military jurisdictions. This dictates the governance of military operations and personnel.
What are the Military Courts?
Military police operate inside a court system that is distinct from civil courts, including courts-martial that are specifically intended to hear cases involving members of the armed forces. These courts are designed to handle a variety of offences, from serious criminal cases to infractions of military discipline. This emphasizes the requirement for a unique legal system designed for military service.
Stages of the Criminal Justice System
What is the Role of the Military Police?
Military police are responsible for a range of tasks, including discipline, investigations, security, and law enforcement. Enforcing military rules and regulations inside military installations and during operations is referred to as law enforcement. Their second responsibility is security, which entails defending military personnel, installations, and equipment against harm. They are also tasked with conducting criminal investigations involving military personnel, ranging from minor infractions to serious crimes. Moreover, they discipline people who violate the rules and assist in maintaining discipline within the ranks through patrols, inspections, and other enforcement activities.
Defence for Those Investigated
Military police also play a significance role in protecting the rights of those being investigated are protected. This includes safeguarding the legal rights of service members during investigations and ensuring due process is followed.
Military police enforce regulations, investigate crimes, and help ensure the security of military installations. Their jurisdiction can sometimes overlaps with civilian law enforcement. However, it is specifically customized to deal with the special and unique aspects of military life and operations.
However, instances of misconduct within the military police can arise, necessitating their prosecution to uphold justice and maintain the integrity of the force. For example, in 2020, several members of the U.S. Army Military Police were prosecuted for their involvement in illegal activities. Likewise, civilian police officers are subject to the same kind of scrutiny and prosecution for misconduct.
How Should Sexual Assault Cases Be Handled by Military Police?
Military police need to respond to sexual assault investigations and allegations in a sensitive, thorough, and immediate matter. There might be issues with victim-blaming, delayed investigations, and inadequate support services.
MPs have a duty to conduct prompt and timely investigations, provide victims with comprehensive and effective supports, such as emotional and practical support. This includes things like medical care, counseling, and legal assistance. There needs to be ongoing, transparent communication between the MPs and the parties involved throughout the investigative process.
New Changes to Sexual Assault Laws in 2024
How Do Service Members and Civilian Charges Interact?
MPs may carry out preliminary inquiries and/or investigations if the incident happens on military grounds or involves service personnel before civilian authorities, such as the Toronto police, can file charges against the service members. The case may be referred to civilian police for additional action when jurisdiction has been established.
What Challenges Do Military Police Face Regarding Interference?
Members of the Military Police must follow military directives and instructions while carrying out their independent and distinct police duties. This can result in difficult situations, especially when investigations involve higher-ranking officials. To address potential interference, the National Defence Act was amended in 1998 to allow MPs to file complaints with the Military Police Complaints Commission (MPCC) if they experience undue influence, coercion, intimidation, or abuse of power from superiors. This provision aims to protect the independence of MPs and uphold the fairness of their investigations.
What Constitutes Abuse of Power, Gross Negligence, and Mismanagement?
There are various concerning ways in which military personnel, especially those in positions of responsibility, can misuse their power. When people are detained without a valid reason, it is a serious violation of their rights to due process and basic justice. In addition to breaking the law, such acts cause distrust among the general population toward service members. Likewise, using excessive force can indicate a serious abuse of authority that could do injury to one’s body as well as their mind. These problems are further exacerbated by retaliation against those who disclose misconduct; this discourages others from reporting misbehaviour and maintains a culture of silence. MPs might demonstrate a failure to perform one’s duty through gross negligence, which is exemplified by the inability to fully investigate serious complaints or instances of crimes. The military’s integrity might be undermined by this negligence.
In cases of negligent investigations, victims are left without recourse and offenders are not held accountable. Poor management, especially when it comes to managing private information inappropriately, significantly jeopardizes security and privacy, possibly putting people in danger. All of these problems make it harder to trust the military justice system and emphasize how important it is to strictly follow established procedures and moral guidelines. Preserving the legitimacy and efficacy of the military justice system requires guaranteeing accountability and cultivating an atmosphere of honesty.
Breakfast Television
Mental Health Concerns in the Justice System.
CP24
The Difference between Criminal and Civil Liability.
CTV News National
The Rise of Gun Violence in Toronto.
Global News
New Changes to Pardons in Canada.
Recent Cases
Caal Caal v. Hudbay Minerals Inc., 2020 ONSC 415
In this case, the plaintiffs are a number of Mayan Q’eqchi’ women from the Lote Ocho community in Guatemala. Here, they stated that they were sexually assaulted by private security personnel and members of the Guatemalan police and military during forced evictions and displacement from disputed lands owned or controlled by the defendants, Hudbay Minerals Inc. and HMI Nickel Inc. Moreover, the plaintiffs claim that during these evictions, their homes were combusted, and they were subjected to sexual assaults including gang rapes by security forces and police.
The plaintiffs attempted to include more specific claims regarding the police and military’s role in the sexual assaults to their amended statement of claim. The defendants asserted that these revisions created a new cause of action and were unworkable from a legal standpoint. The plaintiffs, who claim the defendants were negligent in failing to stop and prevent the assault, are requesting $5,000,000 for general, aggravated, special, punitive, and exemplary damages.
It was up to the Superior Court of Justice of Ontario (OCSJ) to determine if the suggested changes created a whole new cause of action or were just additional details of the already-existing claims. The Court also had to ascertain if whether the defendants would suffer harm as a result of the modifications.
In the end, the Court decided that the modifications should be allowed because they mostly addressed the original facts and did not present a materially new argument or facts that were not previously considered.
This case shows us how complicated it can get to hold multinational corporations accountable for actions taken by their subordinates, and the challenges faced by indigenous communities in seeking justice for human rights violations. This involves situations that pertain to sexual abuse, which disproportionately affects Indigenous women. The Court’s decision to allow the amendments demonstrates the importance of ensuring that all relevant facts when rendering a Court decision.
LM v. HRRM, 2012 CanLII 57385
In the case LM v. HRRM, 2012 CanLII 57385 (ON HPARB), L.M., a weapons technician with the Canadian Armed Forces, filed a complaint against his physician, Dr. H.R.R.M., alleging a breach of confidentiality. When L.M. was sent to Toronto in 2006, he was undergoing therapy for his past drug and mental issues. L.M. was accused of attacking a bus driver during this time, and as part of their inquiry, the military police got in touch with Dr. H.R.R.M.
L.M. believed that Dr. H.R.R.M. had violated his right to medical secrecy by improperly disclosing his addiction problems to military police and non-medical officials. Dr. H.R.R.M. said that he had not revealed any sensitive medical information and that the military already knew the sensitive medical information that was provided.
The Health Professions Appeal and Review Board (HPARB) reviewed the complaint and the decision of the Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee (ICRC) of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, which had found that Dr. H.R.R.M.’s limited disclosure was not a breach of confidentiality given the circumstances. HPARB confirmed the ICRC’s decision, stating that Dr. H.R.R.M. should not have commented on L.M.’s personal issues. Moreover, the Court found no grounds for any further action. The Board ultimately ruled that the investigation was sufficient and the decision was indeed reasonable.
MacNeil v. Master Corporal Brown, 2018 ONSC 5760
Here, S.M. and M.M. filed a lawsuit against Master Corporal Scott Brown and the Attorney General of Canada, alleging negligent investigation by the Military Police (MP) following an altercation at Canadian Forces Base Trenton (CFB Trenton). The altercation occurred as the S.M. and M.M. were leaving an Oktoberfest party, leading to charges against both plaintiffs.
After conducting an MP investigation under the guidance of Master Corporal Brown, S.M. and M.M. were charged with assault inflicting bodily harm. Later, S.M. and M.M. settled their charges by entering into a peace bond.
M.M. and S.M. filed a complaint with the Military Police Office of Professional Standards (MPPS), which dismissed their complaint in 2013. Dissatisfied, they sought a review by the Military Police Complaints Commission (MPCC), which supported several of their claims from 2017.
The M.M. and S.M. then brought forth a civil action claiming negligent investigation. The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing the claims could not go forward because of the Limitations Act, 2002, and that S.M. and M.M. could not establish the required elements of the tort of negligent investigation since their charges were not resolved in their favour.
Ultimately, the Court held the plaintiffs were not able to establish the requisite elements for a negligent investigation claim. Therefore, the motion for summary judgment was granted, dismissing the plaintiffs’ claims.
About the Author
Jordan Donich
Jordan Donich has been a Lawyer for over 10 years and is a trusted legal analyst by Canadian Media. He is as a leader in Canada’s tech sector for lawyers and developer of Law Newbie. Jordan is a Black Belt with the Japan Karate Association and trained in Krav Maga. He won a Gold Medal at 2004 Canadian National Championships and was published in the National Newspaper Awards.
Jordan has been featured in Forbes and is a member of DMZ Angels in Toronto.