Response Letter to CFPM – Request for Suspension of deadline to respond to Summons (MPCC‑2024‑051)

Me Laverdière,

I have reviewed the documents sent on August 21, 2025, by the Attorney General of Canada on behalf of the Canadian Forces Provost Marshal (CFPM) in MPCC file 2024-051. The CFPM requests a suspension of the deadline for producing the documents and things listed in the summons sent to her and submits a motion to obtain the status of interested party.

In response to these two requests, I am issuing an order extending the time limit for producing the documents and things listed in the CFPM’s summons by two weeks and ordering that the motion to obtain the status of interested party be decided in accordance with sections 39 to 43 of the Rules of Procedure for Hearings Before the Military Police Complaints Commission, (2022).

The order extending the time limit is attached to this letter. My reasons are set out below.

Request for Suspension of the Deadline for Responding to the Summons

The CFPM requests a suspension of the deadline to respond to the summons served to her on July 29, 2025. In support of her request, she cites her intention to file a motion as soon as possible for the Military Police Complaints Commission (MPCC) to reconsider its jurisdiction to hear the complaint. It is argued that the preliminary motion should be heard before the hearing, as it could render the summons moot. It is also stated that, in order to conserve the resources of the MPCC and of the parties, this preliminary motion should be decided before the issue of the summons is addressed.

To date, no formal motion on the issue of the MPCC’s jurisdiction under paragraph 38(a) of the Rules of Procedure for Hearings Before the Military Police Complaints Commission, (2022) has been received.

I note that the CFPM has had numerous opportunities to present arguments regarding the MPCC’s jurisdiction in relation to the complaint. In fact, in my request for information dated November 27, 2024, I informed the CFPM that I was considering the issue of the MPCC’s jurisdiction. In my letter dated December 6, 2024, I reiterated that I was considering this issue. Finally, on December 24, 2024, I issued a preliminary decision on the MPCC’s jurisdiction based on the information available at that time.

The complaint was then transferred to the CFPM to process in the first instance. On January 30, 2025, the CFPM issued her decision stating that the complaint would not be pursued because it did not meet the conditions set out in subsection 250.18(1) of the National Defence Act (NDA).

Following the referral of the complaint to the MPCC for review on March 5, 2025, a disclosure request was made under the NDA. In her letter received on May 9, 2025, the CFPM reiterated her position that the complaint did not meet the conditions set out in the Act and that, therefore, the complaint could not be referred to the MPCC for review.

The decision to hold a public interest hearing was published on July 18, 2025.

To date, the CFPM has not filed an application for judicial review before the Federal Court as permitted under section 18.1 of the Federal Courts Act.

Thus, over the past eight months, the CFPM has had the opportunity to present arguments regarding the jurisdiction of the MPCC. I therefore cannot agree with the argument that she has not had the opportunity to be heard.

I would remind you that section 250.14 of the NDA provides that the MPCC must act expeditiously and without formality. It is also important that the resources of the MPCC and all parties involved be used appropriately. Postponing deadlines and multiplying requests for disclosure do not contribute to the judicious use of resources. The parties have the right to be heard within a reasonable time frame. In these circumstances, I cannot grant an indefinite suspension of the time limit.

On the other hand, I recognize that a lawyer has recently been assigned to this case to represent the CFPM and that the volume of information requested is significant.

For all these reasons, I am extending the deadline for the production of the documents and things listed in the summons by 14 days, to September 12, 2025.

I note once again that the CFPM indicates that she will file a motion to have the MPCC’s jurisdiction over the complaint reviewed, but that the MPCC has not yet received the motion in question.

I would remind you that a preliminary decision on the jurisdiction of the MPCC has been rendered. The question of jurisdiction is a mixed question of fact and law. If this question is to be re-examined, it will be in light of all the evidence and relevant information and documents so that my decision is fully informed.

CFPM’s Motion to Obtain Interested Party Status

Finally, I acknowledge receipt of the CFPM’s motion to be granted interested party status. I order, pursuant to paragraph 38(g) of the Rules of Procedure for Hearings Before the Military Police Complaints Commission, (2022), that this motion be decided in accordance with sections 39 to 43 of those Rules.

Accordingly, the time limits set out in those sections for the service of the response and the evidence and memorandum, if any, apply to the motion filed on August 21, 2025, by the Attorney General of Canada on behalf of the CFPM.

Sincerely,

Original document signed by:

Me Tammy Tremblay, MSM, CD, LL.M.
Chairperson

c.c.: Stéphane Goulet

Date modified:

2025-09-10