Military police have public duty, no particular obligation to individuals, finds court
In a recent decision, the Federal Court ruled that the Canadian Forces Military Police (MP) and the Canadian Forces National Investigation Service (CFNIS) did not owe a duty of care to a father and his children in their investigation of a house fire in 2015.
The fire broke out at a residence on Canadian Forces Base (CFB) Edmonton, where "CC," a serving member of the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF), lived with her children. The fire occurred shortly before "DC," the children's father and also a CAF member, was set to assume primary residential care under a court order. CC told investigators she suspected DC of starting the fire, leading the CFNIS to take over the investigation.
Ultimately, the investigators concluded that there was insufficient evidence to determine who started the fire or removed the smoke detectors from the residence. Meanwhile, the family's insurance company conducted its investigation, concluding that the fire was deliberately set and denying CC's claim on the grounds of intentional misconduct.
DC later filed a complaint with the Military Police Complaints Commission (MPCC), alleging that investigators failed to conduct a thorough investigation and should have intervened to prevent CC from having unsupervised access to the children. The MPCC initially dismissed his complaint in 2017. However, in 2019, following a re-examination, the MP arrested and charged CC with arson and attempted murder. She was convicted in 2023 and is currently serving a ten-year sentence.
DC and his children sued the Canadian government, claiming that the CFNIS conducted a negligent investigation that caused them significant trauma. They argued that while police generally owe a public duty of care, their case fell within an exception where police owe a private duty of care to specific victims.
The Federal Court rejected this argument, affirming that police, including military police, have an overarching duty to the public rather than to specific individuals. The court cited previous rulings establishing that police do not owe a duty of care to victims of crime or their families during investigations. It noted that exceptions exist only in narrow circumstances, such as when police fail to warn an identifiable victim of an imminent threat, which did not apply in this case.
The plaintiffs also argued that their claim was novel due to the military police's unique regulatory and disciplinary obligations. However, the court found no legal precedent supporting this distinction and ruled that the claim was not fundamentally different from other dismissed negligent investigation claims.
The court granted summary judgment in favour of the government, dismissing the lawsuit. While acknowledging the plaintiffs' trauma, it ruled that the military police did not owe them a duty of care and that their claim lacked a legal foundation.
