Tim Dunne
The previous issue of The Observatory described the tragic suicide of RCAF flying instructor Major Cristian Hiestand.
On 25 November 2021, military police (MP) at Canadian Forces Base Moose Jaw received a complaint that the Complainant (identified as “C”) was twice sexually assaulted by her former boyfriend, Major Hiestand, a Royal Canadian Air Force flight instructor. MPs with the Canadian Forces National Investigation Service (Western Region) arrested and charged Major Hiestand with two counts of sexual assault. On 17 January 2022 he died by suicide.
His mother and sister filed complaints with the Military Police Complaints Commission alleging that the military police investigation was flawed, that investigators did not interview Hiestand before laying charges and failed to gather or consider evidence such as relevant text messages. Surprisingly, a former MP who served at the military police detachment that handled Hiestand's case a filed a third complaint alleging:
- A warrant officer failed to ask the complainant whether she preferred to be interviewed by a female officer.
- The warrant officer made an unprofessional remark about why the complainant had not gone to the local civilian police instead.
- A sergeant returned to assist with the investigation while allegedly off duty and intoxicated.
- Inexperienced military police members were assigned to conduct the interview and take notes.
- The victim interview was not audio- or video-recorded even though recording equipment was available.
- An unidentified support person was allowed to sit in on the interview before being properly identified later.
On 21 November 2022, almost exactly a year after his death, the MPCC launched a public interest investigation into these complaints and others about how the case was initially handled by a local detachment.
The MPCC’s review focused on whether the military police conducted an impartial and thorough investigation, including appropriate evidence collection and procedural oversight. Both MPCC’s reports, released 4 February 2026 by Chair Tammy Tremblay, found significant shortcomings in the military police’s handling — describing the investigation as rushed, affected by “tunnel vision” or confirmation bias, seriously flawed and characterized by “undue haste,” and inadequate investigative rigor. It concluded that key investigative steps were missed, such as pursuing relevant witness interviews and properly evaluating evidence before charging, and it called attention to supervisory failures. The MPCC also recommended reforms to improve accountability and investigative standards, including greater consultation with prosecutors in sensitive cases.[1]
The report found that investigators prematurely formed the belief that a sexual assault had occurred and focused primarily on evidence supporting that conclusion while failing to adequately pursue potentially exculpatory information.
For example, “One of the significant failings in the CFNIS investigation was the lack of systemic examination of key text messages, despite investigators having access to them as of the night of November 29, 2021.
“[O]n the night of November 29, 2021, at 22:00 hrs, MCpl ***** began downloading the contents of C’s cell phone via a Data Pilot device. Her Security and Military Police Information System (SAMPIS) notes indicate the process took some six hours, completing at 04:00 hrs on the morning of November 30, 2021. As per the disclosure received by the MPCC regarding this information, the text messaging information alone resulted in 1,299 pages of data. Regarding the messages which pertain solely to exchanges with Maj Hiestand, the Forensic Report prepared by Tech Services on January 18, 2022, indicates the extremely high volume of information that was extracted: 121 calls and 7,363 texts.
“MCpl ***** admitted in her interview with PS to conducting only a “cursory” five-minute review of the text messages on the night of November 29, 2021, prior to downloading the data into the Data Pilot.
“MCpl ***** described accessing specific text messages to bolster her grounds for arrest, yet her notebook entries do not reflect this.”[2]
Major Hiestand was given an opportunity to provide a statement to investigators but declined to do so on legal advice. The MPCC determined that investigators nonetheless had an obligation to continue gathering and assessing all available evidence before recommending charges. The report criticized investigators for not interviewing several potentially important witnesses, failing to fully analyze text messages and digital communications, and neglecting to adequately examine contextual evidence relating to consent, intoxication, and the interactions between the complainant and Hiestand before and after the alleged incident. The Commission also found that forensic evidence had not yet been fully processed when the decision to arrest and charge was made.
