Military Justice System Performance Monitoring Framework

Introduction

The Military Justice System Performance Monitoring Framework (MJS-PMF) has been updated to reflect changes introduced by Bill C-77. Developed with the guidance of Professor Yvon Dandurand, an expert in justice system performance and evaluation, the framework benefits from a strong foundation in evidence-based monitoring and accountability practices.

The first iteration of the MJS-PMF was published as Annex F to the Judge Advocate General Annual Report 2019/2020 and is available at: Annex F: Military Justice System Performance Monitoring Framework - Canada.ca.

The updated MJS-PMF is designed to deliver ongoing, objective, meaningful, and relevant data on the performance of the military justice system (MJS), supporting transparency, accountability, and continuous improvement. Developed in parallel with the Justice Administration and Information Management System (JAIMS), the framework ensures alignment between performance indicators and the system’s data infrastructure.

The framework includes a focused set of key performance indicators (KPIs) across three core dimensions:

Input indicators: Measure workload, activities, and available resources.
Output indicators: Assess system outputs and, when compared to inputs or benchmarks, provide insights into efficiency and legitimacy.
Outcome (strategic) indicators: Evaluate performance against broader objectives such as discipline, public safety, fairness, and public confidence in the MJS.

The MJS-PMF reports objective data on the effectiveness, efficiency, and legitimacy of the MJS. These indicators serve as a “canary in the coal mine”, helping to identify potential problem areas early and drawing attention to performance aspects that require further examination. They also assist in the development of benchmarks for future performance and in monitoring the impact of changes to the MJS over time.

The framework relies primarily on two sources of quantitative data: administrative data and, to a lesser extent, data collected from the Military Justice Post-Case User Experience Survey (Survey). Administrative data will be extracted principally from JAIMS, as well as from data available to the Directorate of Military Justice Superintendence.

The Survey plays a complementary role by capturing perspectives that administrative data cannot. It is particularly useful for gathering insights from individuals who have direct experience with military justice at the unit level in various capacities—insights that are essential for evaluating perceived fairness, legitimacy, and effectiveness.

By providing valuable and timely feedback, the MJS-PMF enhances the system’s transparency and accountability. It also enables the Judge Advocate General (JAG) to better monitor the performance of the MJS, supported by trends analysis, issue identifications, and reform evaluation. Ultimately, the framework ensures that the MJS operates in a productive, results-driven, and legally sound manner.

Note: All indicators listed below will be used to measure the annual change compared to the previous year(s).

MJS Input Indicators				Change in status from 2019	Desired Trend Direction
Dimension	Indicator^{Footnote 1}	Rationale	Source
1. Volume of cases^{Footnote 2}	a. Number of cases opened.	This indicator is one of the factors that affects the overall case burden on the military justice system and is relevant to understanding and interpreting certain other military justice indicators.	JAIMS	Amended (see indicator 1.a from 2019 PMF)	N/A
2. Completed investigation	a. Number of investigations completed / cleared by military justice authorities.	The completion/clearance rate is relevant to the perceived legitimacy of the military justice system and is one of the factors that affect the overall case burden on the military justice system. Additionally, this indicator may provide insight into the effectiveness of the investigation process.	JAIMS	New	An increase in the ratio of investigations completed/cleared and cases open.
3. Service offence^{Footnote 3}	a. Number of cases in which a service offence is charged.	Tracking the number of cases in which a service offence is charged may assist in identifying trends, allocating resources, guiding policy decisions, and providing insight into the burden on the military justice system. This indicator is relevant to the understanding and interpretation of certain other military justice indicators.	DMP	Amended (see indicator 3.a from 2019 PMF)	N/A
3. Service offence^{Footnote 3}	b. Number of service offence charges (by type of offence).	This indicator is relevant to the understanding and interpretation of certain other indicators and may provide insight into the burden on the military justice system.	DMP	Amended (see indicator 3.a from 2019 PMF)	N/A
4. Military prosecution of service offences	a. Number and percentage of cases where service offence charges are referred to the Director of Military Prosecutions and are not preferred to court martial.	Identifying dismissible cases at the referral stage may reduce negative consequences for defendants, victims, and the military justice system.	DMP	New	N/A
	b. Number and percentage of cases where any one of the service offence charges referred to Director of Military Prosecution are preferred (by investigative agency).	This indicator highlights trends of preferrals or non-preferrals by investigative agency and may provide insight into the burden on the military justice system. A trend of non-preferrals by an investigative agency may suggest there is a requirement for additional analysis. It assists decision-makers in ensuring that any gaps in investigative or prosecutorial processes can be identified and addressed, contributing to a transparent and accountable military justice system.	DMP	Amended (see indicator 6.a from 2019 PMF)	Increase
	c. Number and percentage of cases where all preferred charges are withdrawn and/or procedure stayed	This indicator provides insight into the burden on the military justice system and may help charge layers understand the appropriateness of charging decisions and provides insight into potential over-charging.	DMP	New
5. Court Martial	a. Number of courts martial completed (by type of offences and by type of courts martial: general courts martial; standing courts martial).	This indicator provides insight into trends in military discipline and conduct, resource requirements, and assists in monitoring how offences are being handled in the military justice system.	DMP	No change (see indicator 7.a from 2019 PMF)	N/A
5. Court Martial	b. Average length of courts martial (in sitting days).	Recognizing that intangible factors affect the courts martial process, monitoring the average length of a courts martial in sitting days provides information on the relative complexity of trials. When compared with other indicators, it may also provide insight into the efficiency of the courts martial process and into the burden on the military justice system. Prolonged case processing may consume more military justice resources without improving public safety and is also unnecessarily detrimental to defendants and victims.	DMP	No change (see indicator 7.c from 2019 PMF)	Decrease
6. Civil prosecution^{Footnote 4}	a. Number of cases opened by military authorities and submitted to the civilian justice system.	This indicator measures the number of cases where military authorities proceed through the civilian justice system. An increase in the number of cases submitted to the civilian system could indicate that a requirement for additional analysis exists.	DMP	Amended (see indicator 4.a from 2019 PMF)	N/A
7. Service infraction^{Footnote 5}	a. Number of cases in which at least one service infraction is charged.	Tracking this metric may assist in identifying trends, allocating resources, guiding policy decisions, and providing insight into the burden on the military justice system. This indicator is relevant to the understanding and interpretation of certain other military justice indicators.	JAIMS	New	N/A
7. Service infraction^{Footnote 5}	b. Number of service infraction charges, by type of service infraction.	This indicator provides insight into patterns of alleged service infractions, and into the burden on military justice at the unit level. It assists in identifying where additional training, guidance, or policy changes may be required to reduce common types of service infractions.	JAIMS	New	N/A
8. Summary hearing	a. Number of summary hearings completed, by type of infraction and level of officer conducting a summary hearing.	This indicator provides insight into the burden on military justice at the unit level and monitors the annual level of activities related to summary hearings. This metric provides decision-makers essential information when conducting internal reviews of military justice processes.	JAIMS	Amended (see indicator 5.a from 2019 PMF)	N/A
8. Summary hearing	b. Number of service infraction charges that are not proceeded with.	A decision not to proceed with one or more charges is relevant to the effectiveness and efficiency of the investigative and charge-laying process and the legitimacy of the summary hearing system (lawfulness, fairness, etc.).	JAIMS	Amended (see indicator 5.c from 2019 PMF)	Decrease
Output Indicators				Change in status from 2019	Desired Trend Direction
Dimension	Indicator	Rationale	Source
9. Timeliness of process	a. Average amount of time (in days) elapsed between the date when service offence charges are laid and the date of final case disposition.	This indicator relates to the timeliness of the disposal of service offence charges which is relevant when assessing the burden on the military justice system. Lengthy court cases cause additional hardship for defendants and victims, require unnecessary expenditures, and contribute to backlogs in the military justice system.	DMP	Amended (see indicator 9.b from 2019 PMF)	Decrease
	b. Average number of days for courts martial to commence once charges are preferred.	There are several factors that could cause a delay in the commencement of a courts martial, which can be attributed to the different actors involved in the military justice process. Delays can lead to additional hardships for victims, ineffective use of military justice resources and undermine confidence in the military justice system. A decrease in this average could suggest an improvement in the efficiency of the military justice system.	DMP	New The Auditor General of Canada recommended that: “[t]he Canadian Armed Forces […] review its military justice processes to identify the causes of delays and to implement corrective measures to reduce them” Reference [434] Fish Report	Decrease
	c. Number and percentage of service offence cases where a final case disposition is reached within 18 months of charge(s) being laid.	This indicator examines the speed at which cases are processed and is an indicator of the timeliness and effectiveness of the military justice system. Lengthy court cases cause additional hardship for defendants and victims, require unnecessary expenditures, and add to backlogs in the military justice system. An increase in this indicator could suggest an improvement in the efficiency of the military justice system.	DMP	New Reference [435] Fish Report.	Increase
	d. Number and percentage of charges stayed pursuant to a successful application under 11(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.	Court martial delays are a significant concern because of the rights of accused persons, the effect on victims of crime, the increased costs, and it can undermine confidence in the military justice system. Failure to provide a trial in a reasonable period violates the constitutional rights of accused persons and can result in cases, including serious charges, being dismissed. A decrease in this indicator could suggest an improvement in the efficiency of the military justice system.	DMP	New	Decrease
	e. Number of service offence cases in the military justice system as of 31 March, that have been pending for more than 12 months since the charges were laid.	This indicator is sensitive to the presence of a potential case backlog in the military justice system. It is important to note that not all service offence cases will be completed within 12 months from the date charges are laid. Some will remain pending in the system. A decrease in this number could suggest an improvement in the efficiency of the military justice system.	DMP	Amended (see indicator 9.d from 2019 PMF)	Decrease
	f. Average amount of time (in days) elapsed from the date of the occurrence of the alleged service infraction and final case disposition.	This indicator monitors the timeliness of the administration of military justice at the unit level, which is important to an effective, efficient, and legitimate military justice system.	JAIMS	Amended (see indicator 9.a from 2019 PMF)	Decrease
	g. Number and percentage of service infraction cases where a summary hearing has not commenced within 6 months from the occurrence of the alleged infraction.	This indicator monitors whether service infraction cases are not proceeding because of the 6 months limitation period. An increase in this number could undermine confidence in the military justice system.	JAIMS	New	Decrease
	h. Number and percentage of cases in which one or more military justice system time standards are not met (by a specific time standard).	This indicator monitors whether military justice system time standards are being implemented and complied with. An increase in this number could suggest inefficiencies in the military justice system.	JAIMS	Amended (see indicator 9.f from 2019 PMF)	Decrease
10. Early resolution of service offence cases	a. Number and percentage of cases in which a guilty plea to all charges is entered before courts martial.	Early resolutions reduce the requirement of lengthy trials and provide insight into the burden on the military justice system.	DMP	Amended (see indicator 11.a from 2019 PMF)	N/A
11. Support to victims	a. Number and percentage of service offence cases involving one or more victims.	This indicator will highlight the frequency of victim related offences and may provide data that will aid in the development of victim support programs. It is relevant to the understanding and interpretation of certain other military justice indicators and provides insight on the impact on timeliness of case processing of cases involving victims and may guide resource management decision.	DMP	New	N/A
	b. Number and percentage of service offence cases involving one or more victims, where a victim liaison officer is appointed.	This indicator measures the frequency at which victim liaison officers are appointed as a key component of the Declaration of Victims' Rights ensuring victims' rights are being upheld in the military justice system. Victim liaison officers help victims navigate the complexities of the military justice system, access available resources, and prevent future victimization. These resources should be extended to all victims.	DMP	New	Increase
	c. Number and percentage of cases in which a victim impact statement is presented.	This indicator measures the frequency at which victim impact statements are presented by victims as a key component of the Declaration of Victims Rights. The victim impact statement gives victims of crime a voice in the military justice system and allows victims to take part in the sentencing of the offender by explaining to the court and the offender, in their own words, how the crime has affected them.	DMP	New	N/A
12. Decision of courts martial	a. Number and percentage of service offence cases leading to a conviction (finding of guilt on one or more charges).	This indicator contributes to understanding charging decisions and measures a key output of the courts martial.	DMP	Amended (see indicator 12.b from 2019 PMF)	N/A
12. Decision of courts martial	b. Number and percentage of service offence cases leading to a finding of not guilty, a stay of proceedings or a withdrawal of all charges.	This indicator contributes to understanding charging decisions and measures a key output of the courts martial.	DMP	Amended (see indicator 12.b from 2019 PMF)	N/A
13. Legal assistance provided to accused	a. Number and percentage of accused charged with a service offence who are represented or receiving other forms of legal assistance from the Directorate Defence Counsel Services lawyers (by gender, type of offence, and type of assistance).	This indicator provides information on the fairness of the military justice system to accused members, their rates of access to justice, accused members perception of effectiveness of representation provided by the Directorate of Defence Counsel Services, and is an indicator of the output of the Directorate of Defence Counsel Services.	DDCS	Amended (see indicator 13.a from 2019 PMF)	Increase
13. Legal assistance provided to accused	b. Number and percentage of accused charged with a service offence who are represented or receiving other forms of legal assistance from the Directorate of Defence Counsel Services lawyers at the appeal stage (by gender, type of offence, and type of assistance).	This indicator provides information on the fairness of the military justice system to accused members, their rates of access to justice, accused members perception of effectiveness of representation provided by the Directorate of Defence Counsel Services and is an indicator of the output of the Directorate of Defence Counsel Services in relation to the appeal process.	DDCS	New	Increase
14. Judicial Review	a. Number of summary hearing cases reviewed by the Federal Court.	This indicator provides insight into the effectiveness of military justice at the unit level, may provide information on the perception of its fairness and efficiency and is relevant to understanding and interpreting certain other military justice indicators.	Federal Court	Amended (see indicator 15.a from 2019 PMF)	N/A
15. Appeal to the Court Martial Appeal Court	a. Number of service offence cases with a notice of appeal to the Courts Martial Appeal Court.	This indicator provides insight into the burden on the military justice system and is relevant to understanding and interpreting certain other military justice indicators.	DMP	Amended (see indicator 16.a from 2019 PMF)	N/A
16. Costs of the military justice system	a. Average cost of a courts martial.	This indicator provides generalized data related to the costs of the three principal organizations responsible for delivering the courts martial system for the Canadian Armed Forces. The costs of courts martial depend on many factors. By examining this we can measure the annual change in the average cost of the courts martial process.	DMP, DDCS & OCMJ	Amended (see indicator 8.a from 2019 PMF)	Decrease
	b. Average cost of prosecution per trial (total annual expenditures / # of courts martial.	This indicator examines the efficiency of the courts martial process by measuring the productivity of prosecutions in relation to their expenses.	DMP	No change (see indicator 8.b from 2019 PMF)	Decrease
	c. Average cost of defence counsel services per trial (total annual expenditures / # of courts martial).	This indicator examines the efficiency of the courts martial process by measuring the productivity of Defence Counsel Services in relation to their expenses.	DDCS	No change (see indicator 8.c from 2019 PMF)	Decrease
Outcome Indicators				Change in status from 2019	Desired Trend Direction
Dimension	Indicator	Rationale	Source
17. Outcome of appeals to the Courts Martial Appeal Court	a. Number and percentage of appeals to the Courts Martial Appeal Court in which the appeal is entirely dismissed.	This indicator provides information related to the quality of decisions made at courts martial which is related to the effectiveness, efficiency, and legitimacy of the military justice system. Additionally, it provides insight into the burden on the military justice system.	DMP	Amended (see indicator 19.a from 2019 PMF)	Increase
18. Outcome of summary hearing reviews	a. Number and percentage of summary hearing reviews in which the review authority upholds the findings made, and sanctions imposed at the summary hearing.	This indicator provides information on the quality of decisions made at the summary hearing which reflects the effectiveness, efficiency, and legitimacy of military justice at the unit level. Additionally, it provides insight into the burden on military justice at the unit level.	JAIMS	Amended (see indicator 17.a from 2019 PMF)	Increase
19. Outcome of judicial reviews	a. Number and percentage of cases in which a summary hearing outcome was upheld by the Federal Court.	This indicator is related to the effectiveness, efficiency, and legitimacy of the administration of military justice at the unit level and its review process.	Federal Court	Amended (see indicator 18.a from 2019 PMF)	Increase
20. Access to justice for persons charged with a service infraction	a. Number and percentage of persons charged with a service infraction who perceive that the administration of military justice at the unit level is fair (by gender, rank, type of infractions, and component).	This indicator provides information on the perceived fairness and is a proxy measure of the perceived “legitimacy” of the administration of military justice at the unit level from the perspective of persons charged with a service infraction.	Survey	Amended (see indicator 20.b from 2019 PMF)	Increase
21. Access to justice for affected persons	a. Number and percentage of affected persons reporting satisfaction with the assistance provided by the Chain of Command (by gender, rank, type of infraction, and component)	This indicator provides information on the effectiveness of military justice at the unit level related to the satisfaction with the assistance provided by the Chain of Command from the perspective of the affected person.	Survey	Amended (see indicator 21.a from 2019 PMF)	Increase
21. Access to justice for affected persons	b. Number and percentage of affected persons who believe that they were treated fairly throughout the summary hearing process (by gender, rank, type of infraction, and component).	This indicator provides information on the perceived “legitimacy” of military justice at the unit level from the perspective of the affected person. This may highlight requirements for procedural improvements and is important for fostering trust in military justice at the unit level.	Survey	New- Based on C-77 and the introduction of DVR	Increase
22. Access to justice for victims	a. Number and percentage of victims who exercised their right to file a complaint (71.02(c) NDA).	This indicator monitors one aspect of the Declaration of Victims’ Rights. An increase in this indicator could suggest inefficiencies in the way the military justice system supports victims and may suggest the requirement for additional analysis.	Director External Review – Declaration of Victims Rights (DER – DVR)	New- Based on C-77 and the introduction of DVR	Decrease
23. Confidence in the administration of military justice at the unit level among affected persons	a. Number and percentage of affected persons who reported a service infraction to an authority^{Footnote 6} (by gender, rank, type of infraction, and component).	This indicator provides information on affected persons’ confidence in the administration of military justice at the unit level, and their reporting tendencies.	Survey	Amended (see indicator 22.a from 2019 PMF)	Increase
	b. Number and percentage of affected persons expressing satisfaction with the way the summary hearing was conducted (by gender, rank, type of infraction, and component).	This is a proxy measure of the “legitimacy” of the military justice system from the perspective of the affected person. Additionally, this indicator may highlight areas requiring procedural improvements for a more effective and efficient summary hearing process.	Survey	Amended (see indicator 22.c from 2019 PMF)	Increase
24. Confidence in the Military Justice System	a. Number and percentage of Canadian Armed Forces members expressing confidence in the administration of military justice at the unit level. (by gender, rank, and component).	This indicator is a proxy measure of the “legitimacy” of the military justice at the unit level from the perspective of Canadian Armed Forces members.	Survey	Amended (see indicator 24.a from 2019 PMF)	Increase
24. Confidence in the Military Justice System	b. Number and percentage of commanding officers expressing confidence in the military justice system (by gender, rank, and component).	This indicator is a proxy measure of the “legitimacy” of the military justice system from the perspective of Canadian Armed Forces Leadership.	Survey	Amended (see indicator 23.a from 2019 PMF)	Increase
25. Perceived fairness of the military justice system	a. Number and percentage of affected persons who perceived the administration of military justice at the unit level as being fair (by gender, rank, type of infraction, and component)	This indicator provides information on the perceived fairness and is a proxy measure of the “legitimacy” of the administration of military justice at the unit level by affected persons.	Survey	Amended (see indicator 25.a from 2019 PMF)	Increase
	b. Number and percentage of persons charged with a service infraction who perceived the Summary Hearing System as being fair (by gender, rank, type of infraction, element, and component).	This indicator provides information on the perceived fairness of the military justice at the unit level process by persons charged with a service infraction and is a proxy measure of the perceived “legitimacy” of the military justice system.	Survey	Amended (see indicator 25.b from 2019 PMF)	Increase
	c. Number and percentage of persons found to have committed a service infraction who believe their sanction was fair.	This indicator provides information on the perceived fairness and is a proxy measure of the “legitimacy” of the administration of military justice at the unit level by persons found to have committed a service infraction.	Survey	New	Increase
26. Military justice system’s contribution to maintaining discipline, efficiency and morale in the Canadian Armed Forces	a. Number and percentage of commanding officers that believe the military justice system contributes to the maintenance of discipline, efficiency, and morale of the Canadian Armed Forces (by gender, rank, and component)	This indicator is a proxy measure of the “legitimacy” of the military justice system from the perspective of Canadian Armed Forces Leadership.	Survey	New (see Dimension 27 from 2019 PMF	Increase

Footnotes

Footnote 1

Note that all indicators can be used for multiple year comparisons once data is available for more than two years, including comparison with the average number over the previous years. This permits the identification of trends.

Return to footnote1 referrer

Footnote 2

The indicators of dimensions 1 and 2 only examine cases investigated and charged at the unit level. The Canadian Forces Provost Marshal Annual Report contains Clearance Rates for certain types of cases within its jurisdiction. Some infractions reported in a year lead to charges in the following year, and charges laid in a year sometimes relate to infractions reported in the previous year. This is acceptable, so long as this indicator is measured and reported in the same manner each year – the year-to-year comparisons then remain valid.

Return to footnote2 referrer

Footnote 3