Military police tampered with evidence in sexual assault investigation, Ontario Superior Court judge rules
WARNING: This article may affect those who have experienced sexual violence or know someone affected by it.
Canadian military police tampered with evidence, showed bias and acted beyond the scope of their jurisdiction during an investigation, with the misconduct "so egregious" that an Ontario Superior Court judge stayed assault and sexual assault charges against an active member of the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF).
In a decision earlier this month, Ontario Superior Court Justice Cynthia Petersen of Brampton said that a stay was a "drastic" but necessary measure in the case because the actions by military police ultimately breached the member's Charter rights not to be deprived of his liberty and security of his person except in accordance with principles of fundamental justice.
The decision was issued just days before jury selection and the trial of the active CAF member, who faced four counts of sexual assault and one count of assault, involving incidents alleged to have occurred from 2007 to 2011.
In her written decision, Petersen criticized the Canadian Forces National Investigation Service (CFNIS), stating that its misconduct "in this case is so egregious and systemic that it shocks the community's conscience."
During pretrial testimony, she noted the investigators made numerous attempts to "conceal, downplay and rationalize their misconduct."
In a statement, a spokesperson for the Office of the Canadian Forces Provost Marshal, which oversees the CFNIS, said it respects the decision made in this case and that the CAF's Office of Professional Standards has launched its own investigation.
WATCH | Changes for military justice:
The Military Police Complaints Commission, the civilian oversight agency, would not confirm whether it had received a complaint about this matter but said it was "deeply troubled by the findings of the court."
Edmonton-based defence attorney Austin Corbett said he is "gratified by the decision" and his client is considering possible legal action against the CFNIS.
Ontario's Ministry of the Attorney General, which represents the Crown in this case, did not confirm if it intended to appeal the decision.
Investigation began in 2021
According to the undisputed facts in this case, the CFNIS launched an investigation in 2021 after the complainant, a reservist, reported 13 years of intimate partner violence to military police in Edmonton.
The decision outlines the complainant's initial reports, in which she described her husband as both physically and verbally abusive. She said he threatened to kill her twice and recounted several violent altercations. The reservist claimed he "never strangled or raped" her but noted she often drank alcohol to feel comfortable engaging with her husband, who frequently pursued sex with her.
She characterized these experiences as "routine" and "part of a cycle of rage and abuse."
The decision also notes that the couple has since separated and was embroiled in a custody battle during the same period that military police conducted their investigation into the alleged abuse.
Military police officers based in Alberta arrested and charged the defendant with two counts of assault months after the initial report, but the Alberta Crown eventually dropped those charges.
Military police continued to investigate allegations said to have occurred while the couple lived in Ontario. The CFNIS is authorized to investigate and charge a person for alleged offences while they are members of or on a CAF base.
In this case, the couple met in 2007 as civilians while living in Ontario and moved to Alberta in 2013, when the defendant joined the military, according to the undisputed facts included in the judge's decision. The defendant was eventually arrested by Alberta military police officers in May 2022 and charged with four counts of sexual assault and one count of assault in connection with offences alleged to have occurred in Ontario.
Edmonton defence attorney Austin Corbett says a lot of evidence that was supposed to be handed over during disclosure of the court proceedings was missing. (Samuel Martin/CBC)
During their pretrial testimony, investigators argued that the allegations of abuse, which spanned 13 years across the two provinces, fell under CFNIS jurisdiction because they were part of "a single continuous pattern of offending" and could not be handled separately.
However, the judge sided with the defence, which argued that the service had no right to investigate or pursue charges in Ontario because the alleged abuse occurred before the husband joined the military.
The investigators continued their work despite an announcement by the minister of national defence in November 2021 that allegations of criminal offences of a sexual nature should be handed over to civilian police forces.
Military police showed bias, judge says
In Petersen's decision, she writes how the officers involved admitted to "taking steps during the investigation that were unlike anything they had ever done in any other case." All were done to benefit the complainant, particularly in the concurrent custody battle between her and the defendant, the judge wrote.
All three investigators agreed to interviews by a psychologist for a parenting assessment as part of family court proceedings.
"They did so voluntarily, despite knowing that CAF policy dictates they should not get involved in family court matters," wrote Petersen. In doing so, they also divulged confidential information about the case.
At one point, officers handed over a forensic copy of the complainant's cellphone records, which included not only the original data found on the device but also additional information, including deleted messages from her husband. The judge noted that this could have been used as evidence against the complainant in family court.
Retired colonel Michel Drapeau, an expert in military law, says the case makes him question the possibility of widespread misconduct within the Canadian Forces National Investigation Service. (Sylvain Lepage/CBC)
At her request, an officer also looked into whether there were outstanding investigations into the complainant's conduct by military police or the RCMP, although he later testified in pretrial hearings that "this was not standard CFNIS practice."
Petersen sided with the defence, stating that one investigator in particular developed a "cosy" and "problematic" relationship with the complainant, failing "to maintain a professional distance."
The decision details how this investigator provided the complainant with free tickets to a basketball game and helped her rehouse a cat left by the defendant, while also maintaining frequent, off-the-record correspondence.
Petersen wrote all these actions "demonstrate a bias in favour of the complainant."
Discussions not properly documented
Petersen also wrote that investigators "systematically failed" in their duty to preserve and disclose relevant evidence in the case.
The judge noted that military officers knowingly used faulty recording equipment during witness interviews. They repeatedly failed to properly document relevant discussions and meetings with each other and the complainant about the investigation.
At one point, an investigator "prompted the complainant to embellish or re-characterize her allegations of sexual offences during a followup interview."
"In your previous statements, you said that [your husband] was not taking no for an answer and that there were about three to four times that you described ... some type of non-consensual sex occurred," reads a segment from that interview's transcript.
The complainant responded with new allegations, including non-consensual oral sex, as well as vaginal and anal intercourse.
Petersen described this as "at best, unacceptable police negligence, and at worst, wilful police misconduct designed to elicit a different statement from the complainant than what she originally provided to the military police."
The judge suggested this was done because investigators disagreed with the Alberta Crown's decision not to lay charges of sexual offences based on the original statement and were hoping to avoid a similar outcome in Ontario "unless they obtained a more inculpatory statement."
Retired lieutenant-colonel Rory Fowler, a former military lawyer now in private practice, says the investigation by CFNIS officers 'is an abject example of a failure over the course of many years to hold investigators accountable for misconduct.' (Sylvain Lepage/CBC)
Other correspondence such as phone calls and text messages between an officer and the complainant was discovered to have been withheld during disclosure, in which parties are legally obligated to hand over all relevant evidence in a case.
When asked for the missing messages, one investigator "destroyed the original evidence in her possession," citing a technical malfunction, according to the decision.
The officers' "lack of understanding of the scope of their legal duty to document and disclose all communications with the complainant ... is deeply troubling," Petersen wrote.
Calls for transparency, public inquiry
In the wake of Petersen's ruling, legal experts are voicing serious concerns about the operations of the CFNIS and the implications for military justice.
"There was a lot missing," Corbett, the defence attorney in this case, said of the gaps in evidence.
"It took months of work and repeated requests to the Crown prosecutor's office and from the Crown prosecutor to the police in order to slowly sort of piece together a lot of the missing pieces."
He said he and his client were also deeply troubled by the behaviour of the investigators, who "put the thumb on the scales of justice with regards to the family court proceedings."
Retired colonel Michel Drapeau, a military law expert, expressed his astonishment at the level of misconduct.
"I have never seen anything like it."
Drapeau is among the growing number of voices calling for a public inquiry into the operations of military police in Canada. He said this case is just another reason why one is necessary.
"How many other cases have these individuals been involved with?"
Rory Fowler, a retired legal officer based in Kingston, Ont., said misconduct by military police is not a new issue, but called the magnitude of it in this particular case unprecedented.
"What this case represents is an abject example of a failure over the course of many years to hold investigators accountable for misconduct and so it gets repeated."
He echoed the call for a public inquiry — a necessary step, he said, toward transparency and systemic change in Canada's military operations.
Support is available for anyone who has been sexually assaulted through crisis lines and local support services via this Government of Canada website or the Ending Violence Association of Canada database. If you're in immediate danger or fear for your safety or that of others around you, please call 911.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Boston Globe
an hour ago
- Boston Globe
What makes for a good closing argument? Jurors in the Karen Read retrial are about to find out.
'It's equal parts art and science,' Christopher Dearborn, a professor at Suffolk Law School said. 'It's about persuasion, trying to tell a better story than the other side. And some of those basic principles of persuasion are really fundamentally no different, whether it's a barroom argument, a closing argument, or a toast or speech.' Several attorneys and legal professionals who spoke to the Globe were unanimous: one of the worst things that attorneys can do in their closing arguments is appear underhanded or insincere. Advertisement 'If you do something that loses you credibility, it really can hurt you,' Dearborn said. 'On close cases, on the margins, being the side that the jury trusts or likes the most can make a difference.' Losing credibility can happen easily by failing to mention what Dearborn referred to as 'bad facts' — ignoring evidence or threads that are detrimental to your case. Karen Read defense attorney Alan Jackson. Pat Greenhouse/Globe Staff Some of those facts involve Advertisement 'In his opening statement, Hank Brennan never talked about Trooper Proctor,' Dearborn said. 'I think it'll be a mistake if he doesn't own that own that issue in his closing. Because it can look like he's trying to hide something.' Even if the facts of the case are fully and accurately addressed, attorneys still run the risk of appearing to be insincere. 'If you are not a person who raises your voice, then don't do that in the closing,' said Boston-based attorney J.W. Carney, Jr. 'Or if you are a person who's sometimes a little insecure, it's okay, you can show that. The jurors have gotten to know who you are through the trial. You don't want to change that personality.' Good lawyers balance their own personality, whether flashy or more methodological, with a measure of accessibility when speaking to jurors. 'You have to be very mindful of the jury's intelligence and be very careful not to potentially insult them or suggest that they don't have the ability to be, both individually and collectively, discerning," said attorney Brad Bailey. At the end of the day, that means delivering the argument like a regular person, clearly and articulately without being overly wordy or extravagant. Related : 'You should talk like you are at Thanksgiving dinner, talking to your grandmother,' said Jack Lu, a retired Superior Court judge and lecturer at Boston College Law School. 'Zero legalese, zero police language, and zero lawyer language.' Advertisement That's not to say there's no room for emotion, he added. 'If there is not blood on the floor, meaning rhetorically, at the end of the closing argument, you have not used raw emotion,' Lu said. Throughout the trial, attorneys from both teams have been making note of what testimony or threads of evidence resonate with jurors, Bailey said. 'You can bet there's a lot of conversation behind closed doors about what seemed to work,' he said. 'You may see direct eye contact being made with particular jurors that could have reacted to certain things.' Carney, who worked alongside Brennan while representing James 'Whitey' Bulger more than a decade ago, said the lead prosecutor in the Read case would address the jurors directly. 'Some lawyers act as if they're giving a closing argument as an orator in the Roman Coliseum,' Carney said. 'Hank talks to individuals in the jury. What he's doing is speaking to a single juror at a time. And that juror during the deliberations will remember the point that Hank gave.' Special prosecutor Hank Brennan questions an accident reconstruction expert on the witness stand during the Karen Read retrial in Norfolk Superior Court. Greg Derr/Associated Press The defense, meanwhile, will seek to convince the jury that the prosecution did not meet the burden of proof in establishing Read's guilt. 'They not only have to lay out why they believe that the crimes have not been proven and why they think the jury ought to have multiple reasonable doubts, but they also anticipate upfront and try to rebut in advance what they believe the prosecution is going to say [in the rebuttal],' he said. Carney pointed to one recent case — Advertisement 'When it was done, I spoke to my two partners and said, 'Here is the website on which you can watch [Reddington's] closing argument, it's brilliant,'' he said. Dearborn said the closing arguments from Read's first trial 'were a little too long, a little bit too scattershot.' But there were a few— particularly from the defense — that he said probably resonated with the jury. 'Those are the things that sometimes jurors talk about because there's only so much attention span out there,' he said. 'So if you're not aware of that when you're talking to a jury, you can lose the jury.' Camilo Fonseca can be reached at
Hamilton Spectator
2 hours ago
- Hamilton Spectator
‘I apologize for being sarcastic': Judge, prosecutor spar over meaning of Hockey Canada players' group texts
LONDON, Ont.—The judge and lead Crown attorney at the high-profile Hockey Canada sex assault trial sparred Thursday over the prosecution's key argument that players used a group chat to cook up a false version of events. Things became so tense between Crown attorney Meaghan Cunningham and Superior Court Justice Maria Carroccia in the courtroom at the judge-alone trial that Cunningham asked to take an earlier afternoon break, saying: 'I'm getting the sense from Your Honour that this is not a persuasive argument, so I'm going to ask to take the break now and readjust, because I don't want to spend more time on this than it deserves.' Crown attorney Meaghan Cunningham, left, and Justice Maria Carroccia, right, are shown in a courtroom sketch. The central issue in the case is whether the complainant, whose identity is covered by a standard publication ban, consented to sexual activity with Alex Formenton, Michael McLeod, Carter Hart, Dillon Dubé and Cal Foote, all members of the 2018 Canadian world junior championship team, in a room at the Delta Armouries hotel in the early hours of June 19, 2018, when she was 20 years old. The complainant had met McLeod at Jack's Bar and returned to his room where they had consensual sex, only for multiple men to come in afterward, some prompted by a group chat text from McLeod about a '3 way.' A screenshot of a group chat involving members of Canada's 2018 world junior championship team. The Crown has alleged that McLeod had intercourse with the complainant a second time in the hotel room's bathroom; that Formenton separately had intercourse with the complainant in the bathroom; that McLeod, Hart and Dubé obtained oral sex from the woman; that Dubé slapped her naked buttocks, and that Foote did the splits over her head and his genitals 'grazed' her face — all without her consent. The Crown has previously argued that the men failed to take reasonable steps to confirm the woman's consent to each sexual act, and that she never made an 'affirmative, voluntary choice.' Carroccia is expected to deliver her judgment on July 24, in what originally began in April as a jury trial, but is now proceeding as a judge-alone case . She frequently questioned Cunningham throughout her closing arguments Thursday, with the Crown attorney saying this had caused her submissions to be longer than anticipated and will continue Friday. Cunningham contends that members of the team, including some of the accused as well as players who testified for the Crown, used a group chat on June 26, 2018, to come up with the false narrative that the complainant was begging men in the room for sex, and was becoming upset when they wouldn't take her up on her offers. On Thursday, she pointed to players' texts about what they should say, after finding out that Hockey Canada was looking into reports of the alleged sexual assault. 'Or they were repeating what they believe happened,' Carroccia said on the fourth day of closing arguments. 'See, those are the two competing inferences from this.' The judge took issue with Cunningham's argument that she should find as untrue the words in a text message from player Jake Bean, who was not charged with any wrongdoing and was never called as a witness at trial. He wrote that players had gone to the room to eat, a girl arrived and wanted to have sex with everyone, gave a few guys oral sex, 'and then we got out of the room when things got too crazy.' The judge asked the Crown if she was asking her to determine what Bean meant by his message when he was never called to testify. 'This is not a statement to the police, Ms. Cunningham, this is a text message ... He's explaining his view, I would think, of what happened in that room,' the judge said. 'How do I do anything with the words in the text message?' The Crown argued that when looking at the evidence as a whole, the Crown's argument becomes 'persuasive' that the players were lying in the group chat. But Cunningham continued to face challenges as the judge questioned the possible meaning of various text messages in the chat. When Cunningham pointed to a text message from player and Crown witness Brett Howden, who wrote something similar to Bean, Carroccia questioned why she would infer on the totality of the evidence that he was crafting a false narrative when he wasn't accused of doing anything. 'What I see happening in our exchange here, Your Honour, is you're sort of looking at each individual message and saying it could mean this, it could mean that,' Cunningham said. 'I'm urging Your Honour to look at them as a whole.' Cunningham argued that mentions of going to McLeod's room for food were 'planted' in the group chat as part of the false narrative, as the real reason was because of an invitation for sexual activity. But when she made that argument in relation to Dubé going to the room, she was again met with resistance from Carroccia, who tried to understand on what facts she could make a finding about the food being a lie. 'I apologize for being sarcastic, Ms. Cunningham, but inferences have to be drawn from facts, not speculation,' she said. When Carroccia returned from the break, Cunningham told her: 'I'm just going to leave you with the Crown's submission that the group chat is evidence of the players getting their stories straight and that should cause Your Honour to have concerns about the details discussed in that group chat.' Group text messages between some members of the 2018 world junior hockey championship team after they learned about an internal Hockey Canada investigation. (The texts appear in a multi-page court exhibit and have been excerpted by the Star.) Earlier on Thursday, Cunningham argued that the defence is trying to undermine the complainant's credibility by relying on the myth of how an 'ideal victim' is supposed to behave. She pointed to defence criticism that the complainant acted less like a witness during her nine days on the stand , and more like a 'PR professional' who came to court with an 'agenda' and tried to insert her 'talking points' into her answers. 'This kind of argument really illustrates why some people feel that victims aren't treated fairly in the criminal justice system,' Cunningham said. 'Because she can't win. If she's too emotional, she's combative. If she's not emotional enough, she's rehearsed ... This all finds its roots in this myth of the ideal victim, that there is a right way for someone to look and sound when they're describing sexual assault.' The jury has heard — in graphic detail — her allegations about what took place inside a London, Ont., hotel room in 2018. The jury has heard — in graphic detail — her allegations about what took place inside a London, Ont., hotel room in 2018. The complainant testified that she has memory gaps and that if she was making demands for sex in the room, it was as a coping mechanism for being in a room full of men she didn't know, something the defence has labelled as 'preposterous.' But Cunningham on Thursday said Carroccia must keep in mind that people facing stressful and traumatic events can react in a plethora of ways, and not always in a logical fashion. 'I submit to Your Honour that offering sex can absolutely be appeasement, absolutely that can be a normal response for someone in a highly stressful, unpredictable event,' Cunningham said. 'It would be wrong, in my submission, to conclude that it's preposterous that anyone would respond in that way. That is the prohibited myth-based reasoning.' The Crown also suggested that despite being nine days on the stand when the trial was being heard by a jury — 'an exceptionally long time for any witness' — the complainant remained generally calm and non-combative, while the defence has argued that she was often trying to anticipate the next question and unnecessarily adding context to a lot of her answers. This caused Carroccia to interject: 'There were a couple of times where I asked her to answer the question instead of going on, and to be honest with you, if this wasn't a jury trial, I would have said it a lot more often,' the judge told Cunningham. Carroccia pointed out the defence argues this showed the complainant had an 'agenda,' while Cunningham disagreed that it shows her being evasive or non-responsive. Cunningham said the complainant's sometimes lengthier responses in front of a jury were understandable as she was trying to give her best explanation in response to defence questions. 'If (the complainant) had any agenda while testifying, it was to ensure that she was not misunderstood, it was to ensure that she had an opportunity to fully explain her experience, which was fundamental to any trier of fact accepting her evidence,' Cunningham said. 'There is nothing wrong with that type of agenda, saying, 'I want my experience to be understood.'' London police documents make clear the high-profile sex assault investigation was reopened in
2 hours ago
Legion of Christ priest arrested in Mexico City airport on rape charge for alleged abuse of a minor
MEXICO CITY -- Authorities arrested a Roman Catholic priest at the capital's international airport on charges of raping of a minor over a period of years, officials said Thursday. The Mexico state prosecutor's office said that Rev. Antonio Cabrera, a member of the Legion of Christ religious order, was arrested Wednesday night on a court order for rape. Authorities cited incidents in 2004, 2007 and 2011, but the investigation only began in December 2024, after the alleged attacks were reported. The abuse allegedly occurred in Naucalpan, a Mexico City suburb. The prosecutor's office did not say why Cabrera was at the airport. The Legion of Christ religious order has been involved in sexual abuse scandals before, including those of its late founder, the Rev. Marcial Maciel, who was later determined to be a serial pedophile. The Vatican in 2010 took over the Mexico-based Legion and imposed a process of reform after an investigation showed that Maciel had sexually abused seminarians and fathered at least three children with two women. The Legion of Christ confirmed the arrest of one of its priests without naming him in statement Thursday. The order said it had not received information from authorities about the case, but were willing to cooperate with the investigation. Cabrera was jailed pending an initial hearing.
