ORDER ADJOURNING THE HEARING SCHEDULED FOR NOVEMBER 9, 2026

MPCC 2024-051 Goulet, Public Interest Hearing pursuant to subsection 250.38(1) of the  National Defence Act

1. On July 18, 2025, I issued a decision designating conduct complaint MPCC 2024-051 as a public interest hearing.
2. On September 3, 2026, the Notice of Hearing, scheduling the hearing for November 9 to 20, 2026, was served on the parties and intervenor in accordance with subsection 250.43(1) of the National Defence Act.
3. For the reasons outlined below, I am adjourning the hearing, which was scheduled to begin on November 9, 2026, to a later date.

First Issue: Representation of the Subjects of the Complaint

4. Over the past few weeks, the two persons who are the subjects of the complaint have expressed concerns about the hearing scheduled for November 2026. Specifically, they were still awaiting a response to their request for legal assistance under the Policy on Legal Assistance and Indemnification, although their request was submitted several months ago.
5. On October 1, 2026, a lawyer contacted the Military Police Complaints Commission (MPCC) to indicate that he was representing one of the subjects of the complaint. He then indicated that he was seeking an adjournment of the hearing, because the decision regarding payment for legal assistance had not yet been received and there was little time left before the hearing was scheduled to begin.
6. On October 5, 2026, one of the Department of Justice’s legal counsel representing the intervenor in the matter informed the MPCC that payment for the legal assistance by private sector counsel for the two subjects had finally been approved.
7. Although legal assistance was approved for both subjects of the complaint, we still have not received confirmation that the other subject has been able to retain private counsel.
8. These delays, which are beyond the MPCC’s control, raise issues of procedural fairness and affect preparation for the hearing. In particular, the prolonged uncertainty surrounding the legal representation of the subjects of the complaint despite their efforts to secure such representation, has complicated the planning and the conduct of
   pre-hearing interviews with them.
9. The concerns raised by the legal counsel of one of the subjects of the complaint regarding the time remaining to prepare the case remain valid. Indeed, the decision regarding payment for legal assistance came shortly before the scheduled start of the hearing.

Second Issue: The Scope of Representation by Department of Justice Counsel

10. At the same time, an additional procedural issue has arisen in recent weeks. It concerns the position taken by the Department of Justice counsel who already represent the Canadian Forces Provost Marshal, that they also represent, in this matter, all employees and representatives of the Department of National Defence and all members of the Canadian Forces, with the exception of the complainant, the person affected by the alleged incidents, and the subjects of the complaint.
11. More specifically, the disagreement concerns the position that MPCC counsel should communicate with Department of Justice counsel before contacting or interviewing any potential witness from the Department of National Defence or the Canadian Forces. It is neither necessary nor appropriate to rule on the merits of this position in the context of this decision. It suffices to note that this issue remains unresolved, that it is currently the subject of discussion between MPCC counsel and Department of Justice counsel, and that it has delayed the preparation for the hearing.
12. Section 84 of the Rules of Procedure for Hearings Before the Military Police Complaints Commission (2022) provides that the MPCC may, of its own motion or on the request of MPCC counsel, a party, or an intervenor, adjourn a hearing if necessary to permit a fair hearing to be held. It also sets out the factors to be considered in deciding whether to adjourn a hearing, including any prejudice to any person, the number of adjournments, the public interest, and the principle of a fair hearing.
13. I note that this is the first adjournment in this matter. Furthermore, the two issues outlined above, namely, the representation of the subjects of the complaint and the scope of the representation claimed by Department of Justice counsel, support an adjournment of the hearing. The adjournment will ensure a fair proceeding and limit the prejudice that could be caused to the various parties. Under these circumstances, the adjournment serves the public interest.
14. I recognize that the complainant and the alleged victim have been waiting a long time for this matter to be heard and that a postponement may prolong their uncertainty and impose an additional burden on them. I take this impact into account in weighing the interests at stake. However, the desire to proceed without delay cannot outweigh the need to ensure a fair process; a hearing cannot take place at the expense of the procedural safeguards essential to its fairness and integrity.
15. The MPCC plans to reschedule the hearing to winter 2027. This adjournment should provide the time needed to clarify the issue of representation of witnesses by Department of Justice counsel and allow the subjects and their counsel to adequately prepare for the hearing.
16. I wish to remind the parties that, despite considerations of procedural fairness, the right to legal representation is not absolute. I am also mindful of the prejudice that any further delay might cause the parties. I therefore expect the parties to cooperate to ensure the hearing proceeds within the scheduled timeframe.

Decision

17. I ORDER the adjournment of the hearing initially scheduled for November 9 to 20, 2026.
18. The new dates will be communicated to the parties and the intervenor as soon as they have been set.

Related information:

• Military Police Complaints Commission announces Public Interest Hearing into alleged detention and treatment of a civilian
• Decision to Conduct a Public Interest Hearing
• Decision on MPCC Jurisdiction Regarding the Active Shooter Exercise Incident
• Rules of Procedure for Hearings Before the Military Police Complaints Commission, 2022 (SOR/20229) 
• Me Tammy Tremblay biography
• Peter Lambrinakos, O.O.M. biography

Note to media: The MPCC is unable to comment on this complaint while the hearing is underway. For general inquiries on the MPCC’s role and processes, please contact:

Date modified:

2026-10-20