ARCHIVED - Annex C: Annual Report of the Director of Military Prosecutions

Section 1 - Introduction

This report, covering the period of 1 April 2009 to 31 March 2010, is prepared in accordance with article 110.11 of the Queen's Regulations and Orders for the Canadian Forces (QR&O), which requires the Director of Military Prosecutions (DMP) to report annually to the Judge Advocate General (JAG) on the execution of his duties and functions.¹ This report is organized into sections that will discuss the following:

• The Canadian Military Prosecution Service's (CMPS) Role, Organization and Personnel
• Training and Policy Development
• Military Justice Proceedings: Trials, Appeals and Other Hearings

Section 2 - The DMP and the CMPS

Role of DMP

The DMP is appointed by the Minister of National Defence. The present DMP is Captain (Navy) John C. Maguire, who was appointed to a four year term on 19 September 2009.² Although, the DMP acts under the general supervision of the JAG, he is expected to exercise his duties and functions independently. Those duties and functions, which are set out in the National Defence Act (NDA), the QR&O, ministerial orders and other agreements, include:

• Reviewing all Code of Service Discipline charges referred to him through the Canadian Forces (CF) chain of command and determining whether:
  • the charges or other charges founded on the evidence should be tried by court martial; or
  • the charges should be dealt with by an officer who has jurisdiction to try the accused by summary trial.
• Conducting - within Canada or at deployed locations overseas - the prosecution of all charges tried by court martial;
• Acting as appellate counsel for the Minister of National Defence on all appeals from courts martial or from the Court Martial Appeal Court (CMAC);
• Acting as the representative of the CF at all custody review hearings conducted before a military judge;
• Acting as the representative of the CF before other boards and tribunals whose jurisdiction touches upon matters relevant to the military justice system; and
• Providing legal advice to military police personnel assigned to the Canadian Forces National Investigation Service (CFNIS).

Organization of the CMPS

The DMP is assisted in his duties and functions by regular and reserve force legal officers appointed to act as military prosecutors, along with civilian paralegals and support staff. The service is organized regionally, and consists of:

• CMPS headquarters at National Defence Headquarters in Ottawa which, as of 31 March 2010 consisted of the DMP, two Deputy Directors of Military Prosecutions (DDMP), an appellate counsel, a prosecutor responsible for policy development, communications, and training, and a legal advisor working directly with the CFNIS;
• Regional Military Prosecutors' (RMP) offices, each with an establishment of two regular force prosecutors, located at:
  • Halifax, Nova Scotia (Atlantic Region),
  • Valcartier, Quebec (Eastern Region),
  • Ottawa, Ontario (Central Region), and
  • Edmonton, Alberta (Western Region); and
• Reserve force prosecutors located individually across Canada.

Given the geographic dispersal of the CMPS across Canada, effective communication is of vital importance to its operations. To ensure that prosecutors remain aware of the progress of individual disciplinary files, DMP updates and distributes several internal reports on a weekly basis. The DMP also convenes regular conference calls among the prosecutors and staff to provide direction and to discuss matters of common interest. Upon the completion of each court martial, a summary sheet outlining the results of the case and the reasons provided by the military judge, is prepared and distributed to all other military prosecutors. The DMP and DDMPs maintain continuous individual contact with and oversight of military prosecutors and key civilian staff.

CMPS Personnel

During this reporting period, the CMPS experienced a number of personnel and position changes at CMPS headquarters. In July, the former appellate counsel was promoted from "acting" capacity to fill the second DDMP Lieutenant-Colonel position. In keeping with a recommendation of the 2008 Bronson Report,³ her replacement in the appellate counsel position was seconded to the Ministry of the Attorney General, Ontario's Ottawa Crown Attorney Office for the first 9 months of the reporting period to gain additional experience. As a result, the appellate counsel duties ended up having to be shared by the two DDMPs for the balance of the year. In addition, in the fall of 2009, a military prosecutor moved into the CFNIS headquarters to become the embedded legal advisor to the CFNIS. A new DDMP (Reserves) was also appointed in November 2009 following the retirement of the former DDMP (Reserves).

During the reporting period there were some significant personnel challenges in the RMP offices. For example,

• in September, one of two legal officers in Atlantic Region was deployed for six months as a deputy military criminal law advisor within the Rule of Law section of the United Nations Mission to the Democratic Republic of Congo;
• in November 2009, one of two legal officers in the Western Region was deployed for six months as a legal advisor to the Combined Security Transition Command in Afghanistan;
• in July 09, an experienced military prosecutor was replaced by a junior prosecutor in Eastern Region;
• in November 09, a military prosecutor who was under training was posted into the Central Region RMP Office; and.
• a lengthy General Court Martial - R. v. Wilcox - tied up RMP Atlantic prosecutors for an extended period of time, including 57 "in court" days.

To help address the resulting personnel gaps, the remaining regular force military prosecutors were required to assume a heavier than normal case load. In addition, reservist CMPS members were called upon to help bridge the gap.⁴ At the same time, a recruiting drive in 2009 resulted in all vacant reserve RMP and DMP positions eventually being filled.

In terms of the civilian component of the CMPS, there were also some notable developments:

• Both the administrative assistant and the court martial paralegal took parental leave for a total of 11 months. Their positions were filled by individuals employed in an acting capacity.
• RMP Atlantic and RMP Central hired legal assistants indeterminately to resolve outstanding vacancies.
• RMP Western filled their legal assistant position in an acting capacity for a ten month period while the incumbent was on parental leave.

Section 3 - Training and Policy Development

Training

All regular force prosecutors are military legal officers who are posted to their positions for a limited period of time - usually three to five years. As such, the training that they receive must support both their current employment as prosecutors as well as their professional development as officers and military lawyers. The relative brevity of a military prosecutor's posting with the CMPS requires a significant and ongoing organizational commitment to provide him or her with the formal training and practical experience necessary to develop the skills, knowledge and judgment essential in an effective prosecutor. This reality poses a significant challenge for the DMP leadership team as it seeks to 'grow' the organization.

Given the small size of the CMPS, much of the required 'formal' training is provided by organizations external to the CF. During the present reporting period, CMPS members participated in conferences and continuing legal education programs organized by federal, provincial and territorial Heads of Prosecution, the Canadian Bar Association and its provincial affiliates, the Federation of Law Societies of Canada, the Ontario Crown Attorneys Association and various provincial law societies. These programs benefited the CF not only through the knowledge imparted and skills developed but also through the professional bonds forged by individual military prosecutors with their colleagues from the provincial and federal prosecution services.

In addition to the large on-the-job training component, the CMPS holds an annual workshop for all its Regular and Reserve Force prosecutors. The one day workshop is held as part of the annual JAG Continuing Legal Education (CLE) workshop. During this reporting period, both the JAG CLE and the CMPS Workshop had to be cancelled for budgetary reasons that were beyond the control of the DMP.

Military prosecutors also took part in a variety of other professional development activities, including the legal officer intermediate and advanced training programs, and the officer professional military education program. Finally, in order to maintain their readiness to deploy into a theatre of operations in support of both the DMP's and the JAG's mandate, military prosecutors conducted individual military skills training such as weapons familiarization and first aid training.

In September 2009 the newly appointed DMP attended the 36^th Conference of the Federal, Provincial and Territorial Heads of Prosecutions Committee in Whitehorse, Yukon. The conference covered an array of topics related to prosecutions. Such conferences provide an opportunity for the various heads of prosecutions from across the country to exchange information and perspectives on topical issues and trends impacting the exercise of prosecutorial discretion; the management and administration of independent prosecution services in Canada; and the practice of criminal law.

A hardworking and highly motivated civilian support staff is an integral part of the CMPS team and provides an essential service to facilitate the carrying out of the DMP's various roles and responsibilities. As a result, significant efforts are also made to provide these individuals with training and experience that will enhance their value to CMPS and to the Department of National Defence, and simultaneously foster their job satisfaction.

CMPS also provides support to the training activities of other CF entities. During the present reporting period, this support included the mentoring and supervision by military prosecutors of a number of junior military lawyers from the Office of the Judge Advocate General who were required to complete a portion of their "on-the-job training" program by assisting in the prosecution at courts martial. Military prosecutors also provided presentations to JAG legal officers, military justice training to members of the CFNIS, served as supervisors for three law students articling with the Office of the JAG and acted as instructors during a week-long military justice Legal Officer Intermediate Training course.

Policy Development

In the previous fiscal year, in response to the Bronson Report, DMP completed a comprehensive review of all CMPS policies and procedures. Amended policies have been published while others are still under review. DMP is working with the CFPM to create a standardized disclosure package and within the past reporting period has assisted in the creation of an electronic pre-charge screening package that is now being provided by the CFNIS to all RMP offices across Canada.

Although there are indications that the adoption of these recommendations and policy amendments have already collectively produced positive results in reducing court martial delay, DMP was still working to adopt some additional recommendations from the Bronson Report that had yet to be implemented by the end of the reporting period. One notable recommendation included establishing additional RMP Offices in Esquimalt and Borden to better serve the CFNIS Detachments in those locations. This particular initiative, which was specifically addressed and supported in the 2009/2010 JAG Business Plan will, hopefully, be realized in 2011.

Finally, military prosecutors also play a role in the development of Canadian military justice and criminal justice policy. The DMP continues to play a strong role in such efforts through his participation on a committee made up of the heads of all federal, provincial and territorial prosecution services.

Section 4 - Military Justice Proceedings

The nature of the operational tasks entrusted to the CF requires the maintenance of a high degree of discipline among CF members. Parliament and the courts have long recognized the importance of a separate military Code of Service Discipline to govern the conduct of individual soldiers, sailors and air force personnel and prescribe punishments for disciplinary breaches.

The Code of Service Discipline is designed to assist commanders in the promotion and maintenance of good order, high morale, efficiency, discipline and operational effectiveness. To these ends, the National Defence Act creates a structure of military tribunals as the ultimate means of enforcing discipline. Among these tribunals are the courts martial and the Court Martial Appeal Court (CMAC).

During the present reporting period, military prosecutors represented the interests of the CF and the general public in a number of different types of judicial proceedings related to the military justice system. These proceedings included courts martial, appeals from courts martial and reviews of pre-trial custody.

Courts Martial

During the reporting period, the DMP received 78 applications for disposal of a charge or charges from various referral authorities (see Figure 1).⁵

Table 1: Referrals by Command of Referral Authority

Following review by military prosecutors, charges were preferred to court martial in respect of 49 applications. In 8 of those cases, charges were withdrawn after they had been preferred but before trial. A decision not to prefer any charges was made in respect of 17 applications.

During the reporting period, a total of 181 charges were tried before 56 courts martial. An examination of the number of courts martial over the previous decade shows that the quantum was just slightly below the average of 60 (See Figure 2).

Table 2: Number of Courts Martial Completed

As of 31 March 2010, 6 courts martial had been convened but not yet commenced and charges in 16 cases had been preferred and were awaiting the assignment of a military judge and the convening of a court martial. This total of 22 cases awaiting completion compares to 35 cases awaiting completion on 31 March 2009 and represents a decrease of 37% from 2009 to 2010 and 58% from 2008 to 2009. However, the backlog of any number of cases awaiting trial is treated by CMPS as a matter of concern.

During the reporting period, 48 trials were held before a Standing Court Martial, composed of a military judge sitting alone as both trier of fact and trier of law. In addition, there were 8 trials held before a General Court Martial, composed of five CF members as triers of fact and a military judge as the trier of law (see Figure 3).

Table 3: Type of Court Martial Trying Accused

At the conclusion of 45 of the trials, the trier of fact made a finding of guilty in respect of at least one charge. The remaining 11 trials had not guilty findings on all charges. There were no instances where there was either a stay or a withdrawal of all charges (see Figure 4).

Table 4: Court Martial Dispositions

Annexes A and B provide additional information regarding the charges tried and the results of each court martial.

At the beginning of a court martial, the military judge asks the accused to plead guilty or not guilty on each of the charges. The following table represents the proportion of courts martial where the accused pleaded guilty to at least one of the charges. (See Figure 5).

Table 5: Nature of Plea by the Accused

While only one sentence may be passed on an offender at a court martial, a sentence may involve more than one punishment. The 45 sentences pronounced by courts martial during the reporting period involved 76 punishments. A fine was the most common punishment, with 33 fines being imposed. Ten punishments of imprisonment and four punishments of detention were also imposed by the court of those 14, four were suspended sentences (see Figure 6).

Table 6: Punishments Awarded

Two applications for release pending appeal where a custodial sentence was imposed were made during the reporting period. One was granted by the presiding military judge, while one was denied. This decision was later reversed by the CMAC⁶.

The reduction of delay in the military justice system continues to be an objective of the DMP. The previous years' initiative to reduce delay at courts martial included adopting a 30-day target from the time DMP receives a charge referral from the chain of command, to the completion of the post charge review by a military prosecutor. Recent data suggests that there was a decreasing general trend from 2006 to 2009 between the reception of an application for disposal of a charge and a decision taken. Conversely, in the 2009-2010 fiscal year, we observed an increase in the time taken from referral of charges to court martial completion, back to levels seen in 2007-2008; however times remained relatively constant from the previous year between referral of charges from the chain of command and their preferral by prosecutors to the Court Martial Administrator (CMA) for court martial (see Figure 7).⁷ It is noteworthy that the 2008-2009 numbers were impacted by the CMAC decision in Trépanier v. R., following which courts martial ceased for several months until legislative amendments were made via Bill C-60.

Table 7: Historical Trends in Court Martial Delay

Appeals

At the beginning of the reporting period 11 appeals were ongoing, all of which had been initiated by members of the Canadian Forces who had been convicted and sentenced by court martial. During the reporting period, 10 appeals were initiated at the Court Martial Appeal Court (CMAC), one of them by the Crown and the remaining nine by convicted members. The Crown filed a cross-appeal in two of these cases. Of the 21 appeal cases, two were abandoned by the Appellant. The CMAC held oral hearings in respect of 10 of these appeals and rendered a decision in eight of them. The CMAC had yet to release a decision in five cases by the end of this reporting period. The remaining six cases before the CMAC had not yet been heard. Additionally, one notice of appeal and one application for leave to appeal were filed with the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) both by convicted members whose appeals were denied at the CMAC. The SCC held an oral hearing in the appeal case but had not released its decision by the end of the reporting period, while the application for leave to appeal had not yet been decided.

Annex C provides additional information regarding the types of appeal and the progress of each appeal.

The following appeals cases are of particular interest because they either involved high profile matters or raised important issues in Canadian criminal or military law:

LCol Szczerbaniwicz v. R.⁸

LCol Szczerbaniwicz was found guilty at court martial of assault contrary to s. 266 of the Criminal Code. The incident took place in Belgium, where he was then serving. During a visit from his wife, from whom he had recently separated, an argument took place. During the argument, Mrs. Szczerbaniwicz threw her husband's framed Master's degree certificate to the floor and was stomping on it. LCol Szczerbaniwicz grabbed her and swung her off the diploma, causing her to fall and suffer bruising.

LCol Szczerbaniwicz appealed the reasonableness of the verdict on the grounds that his right to cross-examine the complainant had been limited, that the Military Judge had inappropriately placed the burden on him to explain the manner in which the complainant was bruised, and that the Military Judge misconstrued the law and facts related to the defence of property and use of excessive force. A majority of the CMAC dismissed all three grounds of appeal. A judge dissented on the grounds that the Military Judge failed to properly apply the test from R. v. D.(W.) regarding reasonable doubt where there is conflicting testimony between the complainant and the accused and that the Military Judge failed to consider relevant facts concerning the statutory defence under subsection 39(1) of the Criminal Code, i.e., the defence of property.

LCol Szczerbaniwicz filed a notice of appeal with the SCC on 2 June 2009, in accordance with his statutory right of appeal under section 245(1)(a) of the National Defence Act respecting a question of law on which a judge at the CMAC dissents. The SCC heard the appeal on 8 February 2010. A decision had not been rendered as of the end of this reporting period.

MCpl Matusheskie v. R.⁹

MCpl Matusheskie was found guilty at court martial of disobedience of a lawful command contrary to section 83 of the National Defence Act. MCpl Matusheskie, a weapons technician, had been ordered not to install tactical latches on specific C-7 assault rifles, however he had also subsequently received a second conflicting order on the same subject.

MCpl Matusheskie appealed his conviction for disobedience of a lawful command. During the trial MCpl Matusheskie admitted that he had disobeyed an order given to him by his direct supervisor. However, he presented the defence that he received a subsequent conflicting order from outside his chain of command. The Military Judge believed the Appellant but required the Appellant to prove, on a balance of probabilities, that the subsequent order was a lawful order.

The Court Martial Appeal Court stated that a command is to be obeyed unless it is manifestly unlawful and that obedience to orders is the fundamental rule of military life. The CMAC found that the Military Judge could only require MCpl Matusheskie to prove the order was lawful if he concluded that the second order was manifestly unlawful.

Ex-Pte Tupper v. R.¹⁰

Ex-Pte Tupper was found guilty at court martial of six charges involving absence without leave, behaving with contempt toward a superior officer, disobeying a lawful command and resisting an escort whose duty it was to apprehend him. He was sentenced to dismissal and 90 days detention, and issued a seven-year weapons prohibition. Ex-Pte Tupper appealed the severity of the sentence and was released pending appeal. In June 2008, pending his appeal, Ex-Pte Tupper was administratively released from the Canadian Forces under item 2(a), Unsatisfactory Conduct.

At the CMAC, he argued that the Military Judge's sentencing reasons were inadequate and that the Military Judge failed to consider relevant mitigating circumstances such as his drug addiction or his attempts to obtain treatment. Although the majority rejected both grounds of appeal, they declared the punishments of dismissal and detention to be inoperative by reason of his administrative release. A judge dissented on the grounds that the court had no basis for allowing the appeal in light of their finding that the sentence was neither too severe nor unfit.

Cpl Wilcox v. R.¹¹

Cpl Wilcox was convicted of criminal negligence causing death contrary to s. 220(a) of the Criminal Code and negligent performance of a military duty contrary to s. 124 of the National Defence Act and sentenced to four years imprisonment and dismissal from the Canadian Forces. Following his trial Cpl Wilcox made an application to the Military Judge to be released from custody pending the resolution of his appeal on the legality of the finding, legality of the sentence, and severity of the sentence. The Military Judge denied the application.

Cpl Wilcox filed an application to the Court Martial Appeal Court to have the Military Judge's decision to deny his release overturned. The Court Martial Appeal Court found that the Court Martial judge did not have the authority to consider the grounds of appeal in his decision while the CMAC did have this authority. The CMAC also found that the Military Judge failed to weigh the seriousness of the offence against the circumstances of the accused and that the dismissal from the CF mitigated the CF interest of having Cpl Wilcox retained in custody. The CMAC released Cpl Wilcox from custody pending the resolution of his appeal.

Capt                    v. R.¹²

Capt                 was found guilty at court martial of an offence under section 130 of the National Defence Act for forging false documents contrary to section 367 of the Criminal Code. After a military doctor complained to the Military Police that her signature had been forged on a document held in Capt                's medical records, the Military Police obtained portions of Capt                's medical file through a request made under section 8(2)(e) of the Privacy Act. Based on the information obtained through that request and the information provided by the military doctor, the Military Police officer then obtained a search warrant for the remainder of the file. An examination of the seized documents allowed an expert in handwriting to determine that Capt                had indeed falsified some of the documents.

At the CMAC, Capt                argued that the communication of his medical file to the Military Police pursuant to section 8(2)(e) of the Privacy Act was illegal and that the resulting search was abusive. The CMAC dismissed the appeal, noting that section 8(2)(e) of the Privacy Act exists to assist the investigation of crimes committed against the state in precisely these types of circumstances and that the Appellant did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy with respect to documents that he had falsified. On 23 March 2010, Capt               filed an application for leave to appeal with the SCC.

Other Hearings

Custody Reviews

Military judges are, in certain circumstances, required to review orders made to retain a CF member in service custody. DMP may represent the interest of the CF at such hearings. During the reporting period, military prosecutors appeared at one pre-trial custody review hearing. In this case, the person in custody remained in custody.

Conclusion - DMP Comments

This has been a year of challenges and progress for the military justice system. This was a year where we continued to maintain gains in terms of timelines from referral to preferral. The reasons for this progress are numerous but primary among them are the adoption and implementation of many of the recommendations made in the Bronson Report and the hard work and dedication shown by all members of the CMPS team in implementing them. At the same time some regression in the timelines between referral and court martial completion was noted. Options to improve trial scheduling processes are being assessed in hopes of identifying ways to improve the situation. It is also the intention of DMP to persist in pressing the previous initiatives to reduce court martial that were identified in prior DMP Annual Reports.

Recent policy development to provide more authority to front line prosecutors with respect to charging documentation and decisions and sentencing approval has both empowered CMPS team members and improved overall morale in the organization. Further, these measures have expedited the screening and negotiation processes allowing for some reduction in delay.

I continue to stress the need to actively develop military prosecutors' skills through targeted professional development initiatives, secondments, deployments and direct mentoring. This investment in our people is assisting to reduce delay, improve overall efficiency, and provide for adequate succession planning. In addition, I am committed to work with the Office of the JAG to retain legal officers in the CMPS for up to five years whenever it is reasonable to do so as a means of reducing prosecutorial turnover. This should help build the core competencies of our prosecutors and assist this relatively new organization to grow in maturity as it enters its second decade of existence, in a way that will better serve the interests of military justice and promote fair trial outcomes.

Overall, I am pleased with the achievements of the CMPS during the reporting period. My predecessor, Captain (Navy) Holly MacDougall, is to be commended for her leadership of the CMPS during the first half of this reporting period. Like her, I am very proud of the small yet remarkable CMPS team of civilian employees and military members. They displayed high levels of skill, dedication and professionalism this year - including under some very trying circumstances. We are all looking forward to overcoming new and existing challenges in discharging our unique prosecutorial roles and functions under Canada's Code of Service Discipline in the upcoming year.

Annex A

1. MCpl Bolter

2. Lt(N) Price

3. Cpl Richard

4. Pte Wilkins

5. Cpl Venator

6. Ex-Pte Desrosiers

7. WO Tourville

8. Ex-Sgt Finstad

9. Sgt Swaby

10. A/SLt Ward

11. Cpl Liwyj

12. Pte Bridger

13. Ex-MCpl Dickson

14. MCpl Crépeau

15. Pte Weir

16. Cpl McGinnis-Armstrong

17. Pte Sterread

18. Cpl Harris

19. Cpl Clark

20. Pte Blanchard

21. Ex-Pte Nieuwendorp

22. Cpl Lumb

23. Cpl Wells

24. OS Welsh

25. Sgt McLaren

26. Cpl Strong

27. Pte Cross

28. Ex-WO Deschamps

29. Ex-Cpl Wilcox

30. OS Durante

31. Ex-Pte Seifi

32. A/SLt Pelletier

33. Pte Billingsley

34. Cpl McDougall

35. Ex-PO1 McDougall

36. Ex-Cpl Beek

37. MS Boyle

38. LS Donnelly

39. Pte Nicholson

40. MCpl Blois

41. MWO Carrier

42. OS Coupal

43. CPO2 Jackson

44. Pte Meadus

45. Cpl Leblanc

46. LS Johnston

47. MCpl Roche

48. MCpl Roach

49. CWO Babcock

50. Pte Foo

51. Pte Cole

52. Capt Plourde

53. Cpl Mleinek

54. 2Lt Mahaney

55. Ex-Cpl Martel

56. Pte Leblanc

Annex B

Disposition by Court Martial

Sentences

Language of Trial

Courts Martial by Command

Courts Martial by Rank

Type of Court Martial

Annex C

Footnotes

¹ Previous DMP Annual Reports, along with copies of DMP Policy Directives and other information can be found at the DMP website.

² His biography can be found at http://www.forces.gc.ca/jag/team-equipe/bio-capt-maguire-eng.asp [no longer published].

³ Bronson Consulting Group, Review of the Canadian Military Prosecution Service. The Bronson Report dated 31 March 2008 was authored by Andrejs Berzins, Q.C. and Malcolm Lindsay, Q.C., who have extensive experience in prosecutions and management. It was requested in 2007 by the previous DMP in order to determine ways to reduce delay at courts martial.

⁴ For example regional Ontario Crown Attorney in Ontario commenced a two-year secondment as a military prosecutor in April 2009 on a reservist contract.

⁵ This data only includes referrals that have gone to court martial.

⁶ Wilcox v. R., [2009] C.M.A.J. No. 7.

⁷ The statistics for "Referrals received to preferral" in fiscal year 2009/2010 only account for those referrals that have been received and preferred at the time of this report. It does not account for those cases that have been referred but have yet to be preferred.

⁸ Szczerbaniwicz v. R., [2009] C.M.A.J. No. 4

⁹ Matusheskie v. R., [2009] C.M.A.J. No. 3

¹⁰ Tupper v. R., [2009] C.M.A.J. No. 5

¹¹ Wilcox v. R., [2009] C.M.A.J. No. 7

¹²                v. R., 2010 CMAC 1

¹³ The Regular Force (Reg F) column provides the percentages of each ranks group for the entire Reg F of the Canadian Forces as they were on 31 March 2010.