Chapter Three — Military Justice: Developments, Policy Initiatives and Jurisprudence

Introduction

The reporting period signified a particularly eventful year in the military justice system. This chapter highlights the developments, policy initiatives and jurisprudence that impacted the military justice system over the course of the reporting period. It includes legislative and policy initiatives supported or undertaken by the Office of the Judge Advocate General (Office of the JAG) in furtherance of the objectives and priorities of the Government of Canada, the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces. This chapter will also highlight a number of cases heard by the Supreme Court of Canada, the Court Martial Appeal Court of Canada and by courts martial.

Back to Top

Developments and Policy Initiatives

Legislative Developments

Bill C-15: Strengthening Military Justice in the Defence of Canada Act

During this reporting period, the Military Justice Division continued its work towards the completion of the regulatory amendments required to implement the majority of the remaining sections of the Strengthening Military Justice in the Defence of Canada Act^{Footnote 29}  (Bill C-15). The legislative and corresponding regulatory amendments came into force on 1 September 2018.

Bill C-15 amended the National Defence Act by implementing the Government of Canada’s response to the majority of the recommendations related to military justice, the grievance process, military police and the Military Police Complaints Commission made by the First Independent Review Authority, the late Right Honourable Antonio Lamer, former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, in his report tabled in Parliament in November 2003.^{Footnote 30}  Bill C-15 also responded to a number of recommendations made by the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs in its report of May 2009.^{Footnote 31}

This last set of amendments to the National Defence Act and Queen’s Regulations and Orders for the Canadian Forces are the culmination of a complex process, requiring years of effort and cooperation by the Military Justice Division and numerous stakeholders within the Canadian Armed Forces, the Department of National Defence and the Department of Justice.^{Footnote 32}

Some of the amendments to the National Defence Act which came into force on 1 September 2018 include:

• The addition of purposes, objectives and principles of sentencing in the military justice system;
• The addition of absolute discharges, intermittent sentences, restitution orders and conditions when a service tribunal suspends the execution of a punishment of imprisonment or detention;
• The addition of a limitation period for charges to be tried at summary trial and of a waiver of limitation periods;
• The expansion of summary trial jurisdiction over lieutenant-colonels with the exception of military judges;
• The addition of victim impact statements to be considered at courts martial where victims may describe physical, emotional and financial harm suffered;
• The amendment of General Court Martial panel composition;
• The addition of a review of direction on release from custody by a military judge following a commanding officer’s review of the direction on release; and
• The addition of circumstances where a person convicted of certain offences will not have a criminal record if they are sentenced to a punishment below a certain threshold.

During this reporting period, legal officers completed a training session regarding the changes to the military justice system resulting from the Bill C-15 amendments to the National Defence Act and the Queen’s Regulations and Orders for the Canadian Forces. In addition, the Office of the JAG and the Canadian Forces Military Law Centre collaborated to create a training package entitled “Presiding Officer Certification Training – Update” designed to bridge the gap between the previous curriculum of the Presiding Officer Certification Training and the changes to the military justice system for Canadian Armed Forces members already Presiding Officer Certification Training qualified. All Canadian Armed Forces members who completed the 2-day Presiding Officer Certification Training course after 1 September 2018 have been trained with the updated Presiding Officer Certification Training curriculum.

Bill C-66: Expungement of Historically Unjust Convictions Act

The Expungement of Historically Unjust Convictions Act ^{FootnoteFootnote 33} (Bill C-66), introduced by the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, received Royal Assent on 21 June 2018.

Bill C-66 creates a procedure for expunging, under certain circumstances, specific historically unjust convictions and provides for the destruction or removal of any related judicial records from federal repositories and systems. Bill C-66 also deems a person who is convicted of an offence for which expungement is ordered never to have been convicted of that offence.

The schedule to Bill C-66 lists various offences in respect of which the expungement of a conviction may be ordered. Eligible offences include a number of sexual offences involving consensual sexual activity between same-sex persons, whether they were prosecuted under the Criminal Code or the National Defence Act.

The Office of the JAG worked with Public Safety Canada to ensure that corresponding service offences under the National Defence Act were included in Bill C-66 in order for persons convicted in the military justice system to be able to apply to the Parole Board of Canada for an expungement order.^{Footnote 34}

Bill C-77: An Act to amend the National Defence Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts

On 10 May 2018, An Act to amend the National Defence Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts (Bill C-77) was introduced in the House of Commons and represents the most recent effort to legislate significant improvements to Canada’s military justice system.^{Footnote 35}

The Military Justice Division has provided direct legal support for this important legislative initiative through the parliamentary process. At the end of the reporting period, Bill C-77 had begun second reading before the Senate.

Bill C-77 is part of the Government of Canada’s commitment to align victims rights in the military justice system with those in the civilian criminal justice system as outlined in the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights. More specifically, the addition of the Declaration of Victims Rights into the Code of Service Discipline would establish rights for victims of services offences in the military justice system such as the right to information, protection, participation and restitution. The amendments would also include the establishment of a complaint mechanism should a victim be of the opinion that any of their rights under the Declaration of Victims Rights have been infringed or denied. The proposed legislation would also provide for the appointment of a Victim’s Liaison Officer, who would meaningfully assist victims of a service offence by explaining how service offences are dealt with under the Code of Service Discipline and by obtaining and providing information to victims relating to a service offence.

Bill C-77 also proposes to improve the efficiency of the military justice system by modifying the summary trial system by creating a non-penal, non-criminal summary hearing system to dispose of service infractions to be created in regulations.

In addition, Bill C-77 seeks to add two important sentencing provisions that mirror the Criminal Code while taking into account the unique requirements of the military justice system. First, Bill C-77 would provide that evidence of a service offence or service infraction that was motivated by bias, prejudice or hate based on gender identity or expression constitutes aggravating circumstances that must be taken into consideration when a sentence or sanction is imposed. Second, Bill C-77 would require that particular attention be afforded to the circumstances of Indigenous offenders, mirroring the Criminal Code provision known as the Gladue principle, when considering the appropriate punishment. The punishment must be reasonable in the circumstances and consistent with the harm done to victims or to the community.

Bill C-45: Cannabis Act

On 21 June 2018, An Act respecting cannabis and to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, the Criminal Code and other Acts (Bill C-45) – received Royal Assent.  Bill C-45 legalized access to recreational cannabis in Canada and introduced regulations on how cannabis may be grown, distributed and sold.  In order to facilitate a seamless transition to the new legal framework for members of the Canadian Armed Forces, and to mitigate any issues in the workplace that may arise with cannabis consumption or possession, the Office of the JAG provided legal support to the chain of command in developing two important policy documents concerning cannabis – Defence Administrative Order and Directive 9004-1,^{Footnote 36}  which addresses the use of cannabis by members of the Canadian Armed Forces; and Defence Administrative Order and Directive 2007-2,^{Footnote 37}  which deals with the use of cannabis by Department of National Defence civilian employees. To promote a healthy and safe workplace these Defence Administrative Orders and Directives establish the parameters under which it is permissible for Canadian Armed Forces members and Department of National Defence civilian employees to possess and consume cannabis. These Defence Administrative Order and Directives came into effect on 17 October 2018.

Back to Top

Support to Victims’ Initiatives

Enhancing support to victims and survivors of service offences is a top priority for the Government of Canada, the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces, as clearly articulated in Canada’s Defence Policy - Strong, Secure, Engaged and Operation HONOUR. As outlined in last year’s Annual Report, the development of policies providing support to victims and survivors at all stages of the military justice system was a priority and remained a priority over this reporting period.

During this reporting period, the Military Justice Division worked in close collaboration with key stakeholders including the Canadian Armed Forces Strategic Response Team on Sexual Misconduct, the Sexual Misconduct Response Centre and the Canadian Forces Provost Marshal with a view to identify and develop policies that would address gaps in existing services to victim and survivor support in the military justice system. In addition, internal and external consultations continued to ensure that victims and survivor support within the military justice system is fulsome and responsive while tailored to the Canadian Armed Forces context. Work on these important initiatives will continue during the next reporting period.

This reporting period is noteworthy as the coming into force of certain provisions of Bill C-15 provided that victims of service offences have the ability to present a victim impact statement before a court martial. In addition, as Bill C-77 advances through the parliamentary process during the next reporting period, the introduction of the Declaration of Victims Rights would signify significant enhancements to the military justice system as the bill would provide clear rights to victims of service offences.

Back to Top

Independent Reports and Recommendations

Office of the Auditor General of Canada’s Reports and Recommendations

During this reporting period, the Office of the Auditor General of Canada released a report relating to the administration of military justice, and a report regarding the efforts undertaken by the Canadian Armed Forces to address inappropriate sexual behaviour in the Canadian Armed Forces. These reports and the accompanying recommendations highlight areas to improve the military justice system, Operation HONOUR and other policies and programs which impact every employee of the Department of National Defence and member of the Canadian Armed Forces.

1. Report on the Administration of Justice in the Canadian Armed Forces

On 29 May 2018, the Office of the Auditor General tabled its report entitled “Report 3 – Administration of Justice in the Canadian Armed Forces.” It concluded that the Canadian Armed Forces “did not administer the military justice system efficiently,”^{Footnote 38}  and that the Office of the JAG “did not provide effective oversight of the military justice system.”^{Footnote 39}  The Office of the Auditor General made nine recommendations to improve the administration of military justice. The Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces agreed with all nine recommendations, as they serve to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of the military justice system and assist the Judge Advocate General in the execution of her statutory responsibility to superintend the administration of military justice in the Canadian Armed Forces.

Within one year of the release of the report, the Office of the JAG has implemented four of the nine recommendations. The remaining five recommendations will be implemented primarily through a suite of new and updated initiatives advanced during this reporting period including: the Justice Administration and Information Management System; the Military Justice Stakeholder Engagement Project; the Military Justice System Per-formance Monitoring Framework; and the Military Justice Round Table, re-named the Military Justice Stakeholders’ Forum.

In addition, in response to a recommendation from the Office of the Auditor General, the Judge Advocate General committed to conduct a review of time standards for every phase of the military justice system. During this reporting period, the Office of the JAG commenced an internal review of the time standards and also started extensive external consultations with key military justice actors to seek their views on existing and preferred time standards within the respective areas of responsibility of these actors. This internal review and external consultation process will allow for the identification and introduction of appropriate time standards that would benefit the military justice process in a manner that respects rules of fairness and legal requirements. Moreover, once these time standards are identified, they will be incorporated into the Justice Administration and Information Management System, which will allow for real-time tracking of military justice files and will prompt actors when they are required to take action to meet a time standard.

Finally, in response to two recommendations of the Office of the Auditor General, the Judge Advocate General has directed that legal officers will be posted to the Canadian Military Prosecution Service or Defence Counsel Services for a minimum of five years, subject only to the availability of a vacant position on the establishment at the appropriate rank or to operational requirements. This posting directive ensures that litigation expertise is developed and maintained.

The Office of the JAG welcomed the Auditor General’s findings and fully agrees with the recommendations as they provide critical insight towards enhancing the military justice system. As the Judge Advocate General stated following receipt of the report “as with the civilian criminal justice system, the military justice system is in constant evolution and benefits significantly from internal and external reviews.” To that end, significant progress has been made in responding to the recommendations during the reporting period and this important work will continue through the next reporting period. Additional detail related to these initiatives can be found later in this Chapter.

2. Report on Inappropriate Sexual Behaviour in the Canadian Armed Forces

On 30 November 2018, the Office of the Auditor General of Canada tabled another report related to the military justice system, entitled “Report 5 – Inappropriate Sexual Behaviour – Canadian Armed Forces.” This report assessed Operation HONOUR’s impact towards changing the culture and eliminating inappropriate sexual behaviour in the Canadian Armed Forces. The report found that while Operation HONOUR increased awareness of inappropriate sexual behaviour within the Canadian Armed Forces, it did not adequately address victim support initiatives^{Footnote 40}  and produced unintended consequences resulting in the underreporting of sexual harassment and assault within the Canadian Armed Forces.^{Footnote 41}  The Office of the Auditor General made seven recommendations, and the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces agreed with all of them.

As Operation HONOUR is a top institutional priority for the Canadian Armed Forces, the Office of the JAG remains fully committed to supporting the chain of command in changing the culture and eliminating inappropriate sexual behaviour in the Canadian Armed Forces. During this reporting period, the Office of the JAG provided ongoing legal support to the initiatives aimed to address the recommendations of the Office of the Auditor General’s report, and towards the creation and implementation of a more robust and effective victim and survivor support framework.

Standing Committee on Public Accounts

During the reporting period, the House of Commons Standing Committee on Public Accounts studied the Office of the Auditor General’s report on the Administration of Justice in the Canadian Armed Forces. On 22 October 2018, the the Deputy Minister of National Defence and the Judge Advocate General appeared before the Standing Committee on Public Accounts to answer the Committee’s questions regarding the report.

On 6 December 2018, following conclusion of its study, the Standing Committee on Public Accounts tabled “Report 3, Administration of Justice in the Canadian Armed Forces, of the 2018 Spring Reports of the Auditor General of Canada.” The Committee’s report echoed the Office of the Auditor General’s findings regarding inefficiencies and delays in the military justice system and made nine recommendations. The Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces agreed to all of the Committee’s recommendations. In order to proactively address these recommendations, the Office of the JAG continues to work towards the key initiatives linked to the Office of the Auditor General’s recommendations; namely, the Justice Administration and Information Management System, the Military Justice Stakeholder Engagement Project, the Military Justice System Performance Monitoring Framework, the Military Justice Stakeholders Forum and a review of time standards in the military justice system. The Government of Canada’s formal response and status update will be submitted to the Committee during the next reporting period.

Military Judges Compensation Committee Report

The Military Judges Compensation Committee, established pursuant to section 165.33 of the National Defence Act, is an independent panel comprised of three members. It is responsible for safeguarding judicial independence within the military justice system by depoliticizing the determination of the compensation of military judges. On 22 February 2019, the Committee submitted its fifth quadrennial report to the Minister of National Defence, on the adequacy of the remuneration of military judges, pursuant to section 165.34 of the National Defence Act. The Minister of National Defence subsequently released the report to the public, in accordance with subsection 165.37(1) of the National Defence Act. The Committee considered a variety of factors and documentation before concluding that military judges are entitled to parity of salary with those of other federally appointed judges. The Committee recommended to the Minister of National Defence that the military judges’ salaries be adjusted to the same level as the salaries of other federally appointed judges as of 1 September 2015. Once this basic adjustment is made, the Committee further recommended that the salaries be indexed as of 1 April 2016 and annually thereafter based on the Industrial Aggregate of Canada and a formula similar to the one provided in subsection 25(2) of the Judges Act. The Minister of National Defence is required to respond to the Committee’s report in accordance with subsection 165.37(2) of the National Defence Act, and the response is expected during the next reporting period.

Back to Top

Developments and Policy Initiatives Related to the Recommendations of the Office of the Auditor General and the Standing Committee on Public Accounts

As noted earlier in this Chapter, there are a number of initiatives that were undertaken during the current reporting period that address a number of the recommendations made in the reports of the Office of the Auditor General and the Standing Committee on Public Accounts respectively. These initiatives: the Justice Administration and Information Management System, the Military Justice Stake-holder Engagement Project, the Military Justice System Performance Monitoring Framework, implementing time standards in the military justice system, establishing the Military Justice Stakeholders’ Forum and enhancing the litigation experience all serve to ensure that the military justice system continues to evolve to meet the expectations of Canadians and the needs of the Canadian Armed Forces.

Superintendence Enhancement and Assessment Project

In the 2015-2016 Judge Advocate General’s Annual Report, the Judge Advocate General announced the initiation of an audit team in order to “develop and pilot a process for […] the collection of objective and measurable data from a variety of sources and through a variety of mechanisms in order to assess the unit level administration of the Code of Service Discipline.”

Based on this mandate, the Superintendence Enhancement and Assessment Project was created and the Superintendence Enhancement and Assessment Team was tasked with its implementation. In order to achieve the Judge Advocate General’s direction, the team began work on two sub-projects under the Superintendence Enhancement and Assessment Project: the Justice Administration and Information Management System and the Military Justice Stakeholder Engagement Project. Both of these key initiatives will combine to provide institutional strategic oversight and will enhance the Judge Advocate General’s ability to carry out her statutory mandate of the superintendence of the administration of the military justice system.

The Justice Administration and Information Management System

The first sub-project under the Superin-tendence Enhancement and Assessment Project is the Justice Administration and In-formation Management System. The Justice Administration and Information Manage-ment System is an innovative electronic case management tool and database designed by the Associate Deputy Minister (Information Management) with subject matter expert advice from the Office of the JAG, to seamlessly and electronically track military justice files from the reporting of an alleged infraction, through to investigation, charge laying, trial disposition and review in both the summary trial and court martial processes. Front-end users of the system (including investigators, charge layers, presiding officers, review authorities, referral authorities and legal advisers) will input data at each stage of the process thereby allowing the progress of a file to be tracked in real-time.

The Justice Administration and Information Management System will deliver the means to provide commanders at all levels with a user-friendly, responsible, effective and efficient real-time workflow tool that will facilitate the administration of military justice at the unit level. It will also ensure that a case proceeds through the system in a timely manner by confirming that it proceeds in the proper order and prompting key actors, at the appropriate time, when they are required to take specific action. The Justice Administration and Information Management System will also compile all relevant statistics on the administration of military justice and provide critical data to assist the strategic oversight of the system.

Development of the Justice Administration and Information Management System commenced during this reporting period, with testing and refining of the system continuing. The system began its pilot phase in November 2018 and is scheduled to launch across the Canadian Armed Forces during the next reporting period.

Military Justice Stakeholder Engagement Project

The second sub-project under the Superin-tendence Enhancement and Assessment Project is the Military Justice Stakeholder Engagement Project. The Military Justice Stakeholder Engagement Project consists of an online survey, developed in cooperation with the Director General Military Personnel Research and Analysis, and designed to collect subjective and qualitative data from a variety of actors involved in the summary trial process during the 2018/19 reporting period. The objective of the Military Justice Stakeholder Engagement Project is to connect with military justice stakeholders in order to better assess the efficiency and effectiveness of the administration of the military justice system and to correct any identified weaknesses in the system. Improved stakeholder engagement will complement the quantitative data which will be available through the Justice Administration and Information Management System once it is fully launched during the next fiscal year. The Superintendence Enhancement and Assessment Team has commenced work on the planning and implementation of the Military Justice Stakeholder Engagement Project during the reporting period and work will continue into the next reporting period.

Military Justice System — Performance Monitoring Framework

The Office of the JAG is providing subject matter expert advice in the development and implementation of a new military justice performance monitoring system. The Military Justice System Performance Monitoring Framework is expected to be launched concurrently with the Justice Administration and Information Management System during the next reporting period. The introduction of the Military Justice System Performance Monitoring Framework will provide access to a breadth of new data that was previously unavailable to the Office of the JAG. Together with the Military Justice Stakeholder Engagement Project and the Justice Administration and Information Management System, the Military Justice System Performance Monitoring Framework will further support the effective and efficient superintendence of the administration of military justice on an ongoing basis. These new sources of data will also further enable the Office of the JAG to conduct evidence-based analysis and decision-making to ensure the effective development of the military justice system. As with the Justice Administration and Information Management System and the Military Justice Stakeholder Engagement Project, the Military Justice System Performance Monitoring Framework will serve to address a number of the recommendations outlined in the Office of the Auditor General’s report and the report of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts.

Implementation of Time Standards within the Military Justice System

The Office of the Auditor General’s Report on the Administration of Justice in the Canadian Armed Forces and the report of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts found that time standards for every phase of the military justice system had not been expressly defined, implemented and communicated. The Office of the Auditor General’s Report specifically recommended that the “Canadian Armed Forces should define and communicate time standards for every phase of the military justice process and ensure there is a process for tracking and enforcing them.”^{Footnote 42}  In response to this recommendation, the Office of the JAG commenced an internal review of the time standards for every phase of the military justice system and has started extensive consultations with key stakeholders during this reporting period. These consultations will collect feedback on existing and preferred time standards within the respective areas of responsibility for key stakeholders in the military justice system. The stakeholders consulted include: the Vice Chief of the Defence Staff, the Canadian Forces Provost Marshal, the Director Military Prosecutions, the Director of Defence Counsel Services and the Canadian Armed Forces’ Disciplinary Advisory Council. Once appropriate time standards have been identified, they will be implemented into the military justice system. In addition, the approved time standards will be incorporated into the Justice Administration and Information Management System, which will allow for real-time tracking of files as they proceed through the military justice system while prompting actors when they are required to take action to meet a time standard. In so doing, the Judge Advocate General’s ability to identify and address causes of any delays within the military justice system will be significantly enhanced.

Military Justice Stakeholders’ Forum

In this reporting period, the Judge Advocate General successfully re-established the Military Justice Round Table, now named the Military Justice Stakeholders’ Forum, in response to the Office of the Auditor General’s recommendations. The Military Justice Stakeholders’ Forum respects the independence and professional obligations of each military justice actor, and benefits from their respective experience and breadth of knowledge. Membership includes members of the military judiciary including the Chief Justice of the Court Martial Appeal Court of Canada and representatives of the Office of the Chief Military Judge, the Judge Advocate General, the Canadian Forces Provost Marshal, the Deputy Judge Advocate General for Military Justice, the Director of Military Prosecutions, the Director of Defence Counsel Services and the Court Martial Administrator.

With meetings occurring on a semi-annual basis, the Military Justice Stakeholders’ Forum had two informative meetings during this reporting period. The Military Justice Stakeholders’ Forum provides a valuable platform enabling strategic exchanges between the key stakeholders in the military justice system that serve to improve communication between key independent actors in the military justice system.

Enhancing Litigation Experience

The Office of the Auditor General’s Report on the Administration of Justice in the Canadian Armed Forces and the report of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts identified a risk that sufficient military litigation expertise was not being developed, with the current posting policies and practices of the Office of the JAG. The Office of the Auditor General’s Report specifically recommended that “[t]he Judge Advocate General […] ensure that its human resource practices support the development of litigation expertise necessary for prosecutors and defence counsel.”^{Footnote 43}  In response, the Judge Advocate General issued direction designed to ensure that legal officers will be posted to the Canadian Military Prosecution Service or Defence Counsel Services for a minimum of five years, subject only to the availability of a vacant position on the establishment at the appropriate rank or to operational requirements. Additionally, the Office of the JAG will commence an occupational analysis during the next reporting period with a view to determining potential personnel management options in order to best mitigate the risk identified by the Office of the Auditor General’s Report, while balancing the service and operational requirements of the Canadian Armed Forces.

Back to Top

Appointments and Designations

Honorary Colonel of the Office of the Judge Advocate General

The former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, Honorary Captain (Navy) the Right Honourable Beverley McLachlin, P.C., was appointed by the Minister of National Defence on 1 March 2018. Subsequent to her appointment, the Office of the JAG held a change of appointment ceremony on 20 June 2018 with the attendance of many distinguished guests including three former Judge Advocate Generals. The ceremony served as an opportunity for the Judge Advocate General and the Office of the JAG to welcome Honorary Captain (Navy) McLachlin and to pay tribute and wish farewell to Honorary Colonel John Hoyles who held the position since 2014.

The Office of the JAG Honorary Colonel serves as an important link with the legal community as well as the Canadian public. Honorary Captain (Navy) McLachlin has immersed herself in her role and fosters a strong esprit de corps within the Office of the JAG through her interactions and advice. Some of her activities included visiting with members of the Office of the JAG, attending the annual Office of the JAG Mess Dinner, and sharing her unique views and wisdom with legal officers and the broader Canadian Armed Forces community through a Defence Team video. The Judge Advocate General and the entire Office of the JAG are most appreciative of the Honorary Colonel’s ongoing support and service to Canada.

Appointment of New Judge Advocate General Chief Warrant Officer

On 25 July 2018, Chief Petty Officer 1st Class Sylvain Bolduc, MMM, CD, was appointed as the Judge Advocate General Chief Warrant Officer. Chief Petty Officer 1st Class Bolduc replaced the outgoing Judge Advocate General Chief Warrant Officer, Chief Petty Officer 1st Class Serge Lavigne, who retired from the Canadian Armed Forces after 36 years of service. Chief Petty Officer 1st Class Bolduc adds an invaluable element to the Judge Advocate General command team, by virtue of his experience and knowledge of the Canadian Armed Forces and, in particular, the military justice system. Chief Petty Officer 1st Class Bolduc was the recipient of the Order of the Marechaussee in Bronze for his extensive work in establishing a formal partnership with the United States Army Criminal Investigation Department. He has served as the Chief Warrant Officer for the Canadian Forces National Investigation Service, the Canadian Forces Military Police Branch and the Canadian Forces Leadership and Recruit School before assuming his current position as the Judge Advocate General Chief Warrant Officer.

Re-appointments of the Director of Military Prosecutions and the Director of Defence Counsel Services

Pursuant to sections 165.1 and 249.18 of the National Defence Act, the Minister of National Defence is responsible to appoint individuals to serve in the positions of Director of Military Prosecutions and Director of Defence Counsel Services for a term of four years, which may be renewed. During this reporting period, the terms of both the Director of Military Prosecutions and the Director of Defence Counsel Services expired and the Minister of National Defence re-appointed both Directors to a further term. The Director of Military Prosecutions, Colonel Bruce MacGregor, Q.C., was appointed to a term that expires on 20 October 2022, and the Director of Defence Counsel Services, Colonel Delano Fullerton, was appointed to a term that expires on 6 March 2020.

Designation of Deputy Chief Military Judge

On 14 June 2018, upon the recommendation of the Minister of National Defence, Lieutenant-Colonel Louis-Vincent d’Auteuil was designated as the Deputy Chief Military Judge by an order in council, pursuant to section 165.28 of the National Defence Act. The Deputy Chief Military Judge exercises and performs the powers, duties and functions of the Chief Military Judge in the event that the Chief Military Judge is absent, unable to act or the office of the Chief Military Judge is vacant.

Appointment of new Canadian Forces Provost Marshal and Commander of the Canadian Forces Military Police Group

On 28 May 2018, Brigadier-General Simon Trudeau assumed the position of the Canadian Forces Provost Marshal and Commander of the Canadian Forces Military Police Group. The Canadian Forces Provost Marshal is the functional authority for Military Police within the Canadian Armed Forces, the designated advisor to the Chief of the Defence Staff on policing matters and the Commander of the Canadian Forces Military Police Group. Brigadier-General Trudeau replaced Brigadier-General Robert Delaney. The change of command ceremony took place on 28 May 2018 in Ottawa, and was presided over by Lieutenant-General Alain Parent.

Other Developments

Military Judges Selection Committee – Public Competition

During this reporting period, the Office of the JAG provided support for the establishment of the Military Judges Selection Committee and the military judges’ selection process as prescribed by the Guidelines for the Military Judges Selection Process. The committee is
established pursuant to an agreement between the Minister of National Defence and the Minister of Justice regarding the selection process for military judges. The committee is comprised of a panel of five individuals who are appointed by a ministerial order by the Minister of National Defence for a term of five years. The Office of the JAG worked with the Office of the Commissioner for Federal Judicial Affairs to administer the judicial application process. Applications from candidates were solicited for potential appointment as a regular or reserve force military judge under subsections 165.21(1) and 165.22(1) of the National Defence Act. The list of candidates is valid for a period of three years and will expire in November 2021.

Chief Military Judge Charged with Offences under the Code of Service Discipline

During the previous reporting period, the Canadian Forces National Investigation Service laid three charges against the Chief Military Judge in January 2018: one count of an act of a fraudulent nature, under section 117(f) of the National Defence Act; one count for willfully making a false entry in a document signed by him that was required for an official purpose, under section 125 of the National Defence Act; and one count of conduct to the prejudice of good order and discipline, under section 129 of the National Defence Act. In February 2018, Lieutenant-Colonel Mark Poland was appointed as Special Prosecutor but was later appointed as a justice in the Ontario Court of Justice. In December 2018, Second Lieutenant Cimon Senécal, initially appointed to assist the Special Prosecutor, assumed the role of lead prosecutor. In June 2018, following a post-charge review by the Special Prosecutor, eight charges were preferred to court martial and the hearing is expected to commence in the next reporting period.

Military Law Course at the University of Ottawa

In January 2019, the University of Ottawa Law School (Common Law Section) offered an intensive three-week course on military justice in collaboration with the Office of the JAG. This course was directed by Commander Mark Létourneau, Appellate Counsel from Defence Counsel Services. Military prosecutors, military defence counsel and other legal officers instructed during this course. In addition, Chief Justice Richard Bell of the Court Martial Appeal Court of Canada, the Judge Advocate General, and Colonel Richard Garon, Commander 35^th Canadian Brigade Group, met with the students and shared their insight on the military justice system.

Back to Top

Jurisprudence

Supreme Court of Canada — Decisions

Defence of honest but mistaken belief in consent

R v Gagnon, 2018 SCC 41

This case involved a challenge to the Military Judge’s decision to put the defence of honest but mistaken belief to the General Court Martial panel, which led to the acquittal of the accused on one count of sexual assault.

The Court Martial Appeal Court found that the Military Judge erred in law by submitting to the court martial panel a defence of honest but mistaken belief in consent without having considered whether the statutory preconditions in paragraph 273.2(b) of the Criminal Code had been met. The majority concluded that a judge applying the proper legal framework would likely consider that reasonable steps had not been taken by the accused to ascertain consent, and deny the defence of honest but mistaken belief in consent. On this basis, the majority overturned the acquittal and ordered a new trial. In dissent, the Chief Justice concluded that there was evidence of reasonable steps and an air of reality to the defence of honest but mistaken belief on the facts of the case sufficient to put the defence to the panel.

On 16 October 2018, hearing the appeal of the accused as of right, the Supreme Court of Canada, with a unanimous decision from the bench, dismissed the case. The Supreme Court of Canada was of the opinion that there was no evidence from which a trier of fact could find that the appellant had taken reasonable steps to ascertain that the complainant was consenting. Therefore, the defence of honest but mistaken belief should not have been put to the panel.

Of note, Warrant Officer Gagnon is one of the parties to the appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada in Stillman v R^{Footnote 44}  concerning section 11(f) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (Charter).

Back to Top

Supreme Court of Canada — Ongoing Appeals

Right to a jury trial pursuant to section 11(f) of the Charter

R v Beaudry, SCC 38308 / Stillman v R, SCC 37701

These appeals were joined together with eight other appeals, all concerning a common question regarding the constitutionality of paragraph 130(1)(a) of the National Defence Act. The appellants argued that paragraph 130(1)(a) of the National Defence Act violated their right to a jury trial guaranteed under section 11(f) of the Charter. Section 11(f) of the Charter provides that anyone charged with an offence has the right to the benefit of a trial by jury where the maximum punishment for the offence is imprisonment for five years or more, except in the case of an offence under military law tried by military tribunal.

The Court Martial Appeal Court had previously dealt with the central issue raised in this appeal in three separate cases. In R v Royes,^{Footnote 45}  a unanimous panel of the Court concluded that the offences referred to in paragraph 130(1)(a) are offences under military law properly tried by a military tribunal, not requiring a military nexus test. As such, paragraph 130(1)(a) was determined to fall within the exception to the right to a trial by jury in section 11(f) of the Charter.

The Court Martial Appeal Court considered the same constitutional issue for a second time, by a new panel, in the case of R v Déry,^{Footnote 46}  which was heard alongside the case of R v Stillman.^{Footnote 47}  In R v Déry, the Court concluded that it was bound by the decision in R v Royes due to the principles of judicial comity and horizontal stare decisis. While Chief Justice Bell was in support of the unanimous decision in R v Royes, the majority of the Court delivered extensive reasons as to why they would have found paragraph 130(1)(a) of the National Defence Act unconstitutional. The majority of the Court reasoned that, absent a military nexus test, paragraph 130(1)(a) violates section 11(f) of the Charter.

The same issue was considered for a third time, by another panel of the Court Martial Appeal Court, in the case of R v Beaudry.^{Footnote 48}  The majority of the Court departed from the principles of judicial comity and horizontal stare decisis and decided against following the decisions rendered in R v Royes and R v Déry. They reasoned that paragraph 130(1)(a) of the National Defence Act, which effectively converts certain civil offences into service offences to be tried under the military justice system absent a jury, was an impermissible exercise of Parliamentary authority because it limited a right guaranteed by the Charter. The Court declared paragraph 130(1)(a) to be unconstitutional and of no force or effect in its application to any civil offence for which the maximum sentence is five years of imprisonment or more. As a consequence, the military justice system could no longer prosecute serious offences committed in Canada, including sexual assault and other offences committed in Canada, punishable by five years of imprisonment or more.

On 21 September 2018, the Director of Military Prosecutions, on behalf of the Minister of National Defence, appealed the Court Martial Appeal Court’s decision in R v Beaudry and filed a motion requesting that the appeal of R v Beaudry be joined with that of R v Stillman as they both relate to the same legal issue. The Supreme Court of Canada granted leave to appeal and heard these matters together on 26 March 2019. At the end of this reporting period, the Supreme Court of Canada had not released its decision with respect to these matters.

Back to Top

Federal Court — Decisions

Constitutionality of the Summary Trial Process

Thurrott v Canada (A.G.), 2018 FC 577

Petty Officer 2nd Class Thurrott was found guilty at summary trial of being absent without leave, contrary to section 90 of the National Defence Act. He was sentenced to a fine of $1,000. On review, the Review Authority determined that the guilty verdict was appropriate and the sentence was fair and justified. Subsequently, the offender applied to the Federal Court for judicial review, arguing that the summary trial process is unconstitutional as the process violates constitutionally guaranteed rights protected under the Charter. The matter was heard on 14 May 2018 and the Court rendered its decision on 4 June 2018.

The Federal Court assessed the Review Authority’s decision, concluding that the decision satisfied the standard of reasonableness and did not merit being overturned. The Court also found that Petty Officer 2nd Class Thurrott had failed to duly serve a notice of constitutional question to the Attorney Generals of Canada and of each province, and he had failed to provide a proper factual foundation necessary for constitutional litigation. As a result the Court refused to consider the constitutional issues raised.

Furthermore, the Court noted that the offender had failed to establish that his Charter rights had been engaged, let alone breached, during the summary trial process. Given that he had been ordered to pay a fine of $1,000 and did not face true penal consequences, the Court stated that the section 7 and section 12 Charter arguments could be readily dismissed. With respect to the offender’s argument under section 11(d) of the Charter, the Court stated that this protection was only available in limited circumstances where true penal consequences flow from the sanction imposed, which was not the case before the Court. Consequently, the section 11(d) Charter argument was not available to Petty Officer 2nd Class Thurrott.

Back to Top

Court Martial Appeal Court of Canada — Decisions

Requirement for charge-layer to have an actual belief that the accused committed the alleged offence

R v Edmunds, 2018 CMAC 2

Master Corporal Edmunds ran a fraudulent scheme whereby he contracted on behalf of the Canadian Armed Forces with a company of which he was the sole owner. He pleaded guilty to one count of fraud over $5,000 involving two fraudulent transactions, contrary to section 380 of the Criminal Code and punishable under paragraph 130(1)(a) of the National Defence Act, and was sentenced to 30 days imprisonment. He was subsequently charged with several additional counts of fraud which resulted in a second court martial. At his second trial, Master Corporal Edmunds argued that the conduct of the investigators and prosecution was abusive, primarily because the prosecution had improperly split its case. The issues at appeal arose from his second trial.

During a pre-trial disclosure and abuse of process application, the charge-layer testified that he did not know any information about the alleged offences. He had been presented with a Record of Disciplinary Proceedings containing a number of charges and simply signed it. The Military Judge found that the charge-layer did not have an actual and reasonable belief that an offence had been committed, incorporating this finding into his decision on the abuse of process.

In his decision on the abuse of process, the Military Judge found that the prosecution had not acted in bad faith or maliciously, but determined that subjecting Master Corporal Edmunds to two trials was an abuse of process. The Military Judge reasoned that the prejudice arising from this abuse was the possibility that Master Corporal Edmunds would be subjected to two separate periods of incarceration. However, he concluded that this prejudice could be remedied through mitigation of sentence.

Master Corporal Edmunds appealed the Military Judge’s refusal to grant a stay of proceedings. After a review of the appeal record, the Director of Military Prosecutions agreed that the error at the charge laying stage was fatal to the charges and that the court martial had therefore been without jurisdiction. This invalidated the proceedings and required the Court Martial Appeal Court to quash the conviction. The Court Martial Appeal Court heard the matter on 19 March 2018 and, in its decision on 9 May 2018, agreed and held that the requirement that a charge-layer possess reasonable grounds to believe that the accused committed the offence charged constitutes a safeguard against the irresponsible laying of charges. The Court Martial Appeal Court went on to hold that the failure to meet this standard is fatal to a Record of Disciplinary Proceedings and results in a loss of jurisdiction. Consequently, the convictions from the second trial of Master Corporal Edmunds were quashed.

Interpretation of the charge of drunkenness and of the defence of honest but mistaken belief in consent

R v Cadieux, 2018 CMAC 3

Corporal Cadieux was charged with having committed a sexual assault, contrary to section 271 of the Criminal Code, punishable under paragraph 130(1)(b) of the National Defence Act, and with drunkenness, contrary to section 97 of the National Defence Act.

Corporal Cadieux was acquitted of these charges at a Standing Court Martial. The Director of Military Prosecutions appealed the acquittal on the basis that the Military Judge erred in his assessment of the defence of honest but mistaken belief in consent, in his assessment of witness credibility and in his interpretation of the offence of drunkenness.

The Court Martial Appeal Court allowed the appeal and the matter was heard on 12 March 2018. In its decision on 10 September 2018, the Court Martial Appeal Court ordered a new trial. The Court Martial Appeal Court held that where an accused individual raises the defence of honest but mistaken belief, courts must engage in a complete analysis of the statutory preconditions provided in section 273.2 of the Criminal Code, to determine if the defence is available to the accused. The Court Martial Appeal Court found that the Military Judge failed to engage in a fulsome analysis of the statutory preconditions which was a reversible error.

With respect to the charge of drunkenness, the Court Martial Appeal Court found that the trial court erred in its conclusion that the state of being hungover cannot be considered as conduct owing to the influence of alcohol. The Court also found that the Military Judge erred in concluding that where an accused is manageable, in that he/she complies with lawful orders, the accused cannot be guilty of “disorderly” behaviour, which is one of the elements of a charge of drunkenness. The Court Martial Appeal Court held that the state of being hungover is a direct result of excessive drunkenness. Therefore, conduct which otherwise meets the definition of drunkenness cannot be disregarded because it arises from the state of being hungover. The Court found the offence of drunkenness is meant to address fitness for duty or behaviour that is disorderly or discredits Her Majesty’s service, and manageability is not curative of disorderly behaviour.

Right to a jury trial pursuant to section 11(f) of the Charter

R v Beaudry, 2018 CMAC 4

Corporal Beaudry was charged with two counts under section 130 of the National Defence Act; the first for committing sexual assault causing bodily harm, and the second for overcoming resistance to the commission of an offence, contrary to paragraph 272(1)(c) and subsection 246(a) of the Criminal Code. The Court Martial Administrator issued a convening order requiring the accused to appear before a Standing Court Martial.

The accused brought an application challenging the constitutionality of paragraph 130(1)(a) of the National Defence Act, on the grounds that the provision violated his right to a jury trial, guaranteed under section 11(f) of the Charter. The Military Judge rejected the application and proceeded with the trial. The accused was subsequently found guilty of committing sexual assault causing bodily harm.

Corporal Beaudry appealed to the Court Martial Appeal Court, contending that paragraph 130(1)(a) of the National Defence Act was unconstitutional as it deprived him of his constitutionally guaranteed right to a trial by judge and jury. The matter was heard by the Court Martial Appeal Court on 23 February 2017, 31 October 2017 and 30 January 2018. In a majority decision delivered on 19 September 2018, the Court Martial Appeal Court allowed the appeal and declared paragraph 130(1)(a) of the National Defence Act to be unconstitutional and to be of no force or effect in its application to any civil offence for which the maximum sentence is five years of imprisonment or more. As a result, the military justice system could no longer try Canadian Armed Forces members for a variety of civil offences pursuant to paragraph 130(1)(a) of the National Defence Act, if committed in Canada, including assault, assault causing bodily harm, assaulting a police officer, sexual assault, as well as for the offences of possession and trafficking of a controlled substance.

The Director of Military Prosecutions filed a notice of appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada on 21 September 2018.^{Footnote 49}  The Supreme Court of Canada heard the appeal on 26 March 2019 and reserved judgment. At the end of this reporting period, the Supreme Court of Canada had not released its judgment in the matter.

The Director of Military Prosecutions also filed an initial motion to stay the declaration of invalidity made in the judgment of the Court Martial Appeal Court. This motion was heard by the Supreme Court of Canada on 14 January 2019 and was dismissed, based on the fact that the applicable criteria to grant a stay were not met. The Supreme Court of Canada concluded that the Director of Military Prosecutions had failed to establish that the balance of convenience favoured granting the stay of the declaration of invalidity.

Release pending appeal

R v Stillman, 2019 CMAC 1

In 2013, Corporal Stillman was found guilty at a Standing Court Martial of various offences under paragraph 130(1)(a) of the National Defence Act. Corporal Stillman appealed his conviction, contending that paragraph 130(1)(a) of the National Defence Act is unconstitutional. While the appeal was dismissed by the Court Martial Appeal Court, the subsequent appeal of R v Beaudry to the Supreme Court of Canada was accepted. On 14 February 2019, the Court Martial Appeal Court heard Corporal Stillman’s motion seeking judicial interim release. On consent of the parties, the Court Martial Appeal Court, in its decision of 18 February 2019, ordered a partial stay of the sentence imposed at the Standing Court Martial, and ordered the conditional release of Corporal Stillman from incarceration.

Back to Top

Court Martial Appeal Court of Canada — Ongoing Appeals

Appropriate interpretation of a trier of fact relying on experience and general service knowledge regarding what constitutes conduct to the prejudice of good order and discipline

R v Bannister, 2018 CM 3003

Captain Bannister was charged with three offences for having allegedly behaved in a disgraceful manner contrary to section 93 of the National Defence Act. Alternatively, he was charged with three offences for conduct to the prejudice of good order and discipline contrary to section 129 of the National Defence Act for inappropriate sexual comments made in the workplace. At the court martial, the Military Judge acquitted Captain Bannister of all charges. The Director of Military Prosecutions appealed the acquittal on the basis that the Military Judge erred in his interpretation of the offence of disgraceful conduct and erred in his interpretation of prejudice to good order and discipline. More specifically, the grounds of appeal focused on the extent to which the Military Judge was entitled or obliged to use his/her military experience and general service knowledge when deliberating upon these charges.

The Court Martial Appeal Court heard the appeal on 21 November 2018.^{Footnote 50}  At the end of this reporting period, the Court Martial Appeal Court had not released its decision in the matter.

Availability of the defence of honest but mistaken belief in consent

R v MacIntyre, 2018 CM 4014

Sergeant MacIntyre was charged with one count of sexual assault contrary to section 271 of the Criminal Code and punishable under paragraph 130(1)(a) of the National Defence Act. At the end of the evidentiary stage of the court martial, the accused requested that a defence of honest but mistaken belief in consent be put to the General Court Martial panel. The Military Judge refused to put the defence to the panel for its consideration after having determined that, on the facts, there was no air of reality to the defence of honest but mistaken belief in consent. The Military Judge reasoned that the defence of honest but mistaken belief in consent should not be put to the panel for consideration when the sole issue is one of credibility, as it was in the present case. Despite the defence of honest but mistaken belief in consent not being put to the panel, Sergeant MacIntyre was found not guilty of the charge.

The Director of Military Prosecutions appealed to the Court Martial Appeal Court, which heard the appeal on 27 March 2019.^{Footnote 51}  At the end of this reporting period, the Court Martial Appeal Court had not released its decision in the matter.

Reliability of a voluntary confession

R v Edwards, 2018 CM 4018

Leading Seaman Edwards was charged with one count of prejudice to good order and discipline for the use of cocaine, contrary to section 129 of the National Defence Act. On 16 November 2018 the Standing Court Martial found him not guilty. The evidence was based on the accused’s voluntary admission of having purchased and consumed cocaine. The Military Judge expressed concerns about the voluntary confession of the accused and gave the benefit of the doubt to the accused, stating that the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court also found the prosecution did not prove that the use of a prohibited drug occurred at or near Halifax, as particularized in the charge. The Military Judge acquitted the accused.

The Director of Military Prosecutions appealed this case to the Court Martial Appeal Court and the appeal is expected to take place during the next reporting period.^{Footnote 52}

Back to Top

Court Martial — Decisions of Note

Courts Martial following the decision of R v Beaudry, 2018 CMAC 4

R v Ryan, 2018 CM 2033

Leading Seaman Ryan was charged with two counts of sexual assault contrary to section 271 of the Criminal Code and punishable under paragraph 130(1)(a) of the National Defence Act. Following the release of the Court Martial Appeal Court’s decision in R v Beaudry, the accused filed an application seeking the termination of the proceedings against him for lack of jurisdiction.

The matter was heard on 15 November 2018 and the Court rendered its decision on 22 November 2018. The Military Judge, in applying the doctrine of stare decisis, analyzed the cases of R v Royes, R v Déry and R v Beaudry and found the decision in R v Royes to be most persuasive. The Military Judge noted that “CMAC Beaudry imposes unnecessary limitations upon the administration of military justice, creating more problems than it solves as it subordinates other equality rights and principles of fairness.” The Court found there is sufficient active oversight and accountability from military panels to maintain and rely upon them. The application to terminate the proceedings was denied but, in the interest of justice, the trial date was not to be fixed before a final decision by the Supreme Court of Canada, given the Director of Military Prosecutions motion to stay the decision of the Court Martial Appeal Court in R v Beaudry. At the end of this reporting period, the case was still awaiting trial.

R v Spriggs, 2019 CM 4002

Corporal Spriggs was charged with one count of sexual assault contrary to section 271 of the Criminal Code and punishable under paragraph 130(1)(a) of the National Defence Act. As a result of the R v Beaudry decision, the initial charge was withdrawn and replaced with a charge of disgraceful conduct, contrary to section 93 of the National Defence Act. The trial commenced on 28 January 2019.

The accused presented an application for stay of the proceedings under section 24(1) of the Charter as a remedy to what he alleged was an abuse of proceedings. The accused alleged that such substitution in the charges was used to circumvent the loss of jurisdiction arising from the R v Beaudry decision.

The Military Judge concluded that by withdrawing the very charge which made the accused triable by a judge and jury in a civilian court of criminal jurisdiction, and by replacing it by a purely military charge of disgraceful conduct triable only by court martial, the accused was effectively deprived of a right pursuant to the Charter. As a result, on 31 January 2019, the Military Judge terminated the proceedings.

Misconduct of a sexual nature

R v Duvall, 2018 CM 2027

Captain Duvall was charged with one count of disgraceful conduct contrary to section 93 of the National Defence Act, for sexually touching a service member, and a colleague without her consent. The accused pleaded guilty to the charge and was found guilty of disgraceful conduct. On 28 September 2018 the military judge sentenced him to a severe reprimand and a fine of $2,000.

R v Jonasson, 2019 CM 2003

Lieutenant-Colonel Jonasson was charged, contrary to section 95 of the National Defence Act, for allegedly ill-treating a person who was, by rank, subordinate to him. He was also charged, contrary to section 97 of the National Defence Act, for drunkenness. After an initial investigation yielded insufficient evidence, a further investigation was conducted by the Canadian Forces National Investigation Service. Owing to limited evidence on the drunkenness charge, the accused’s application for no prima face case was granted. On the remaining charge, numerous witnesses were called, but none could provide evidence proving that the alleged acts occurred. Furthermore, the Military Judge concluded that the complainant was neither credible nor reliable and warned of potential offences for making false allegations. Lieutenant-Colonel Jonasson was found not guilty and acquitted of all charges on 8 February 2019.

Other significant cases

R v Abbott, 2018 CM 2032

Major Abbott was charged with of one count of behaving in a disgraceful manner, contrary to section 93 of the National Defence Act. A Victim Impact Statement was prepared and read by the victim where she expressed how the incident affected her and the self-doubt it created personally, as well as professionally. Through her Victim Impact Statement, the victim was able to communicate to the Court the direct consequences that the accused’s behaviour had on her. The Military Judge considered the Victim Impact Statement as an aggravating factor, prior to sentencing. The accused entered a guilty plea and was sentenced on 5 November 2018 to a severe reprimand, as well as a $2,500 fine.

R v Stow, 2018 CM 3014

Leading Seaman Stow was charged and found guilty of trafficking in cocaine, contrary to section 5(1) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. Five other charges were initially laid against the accused but were later withdrawn. Given the seriousness of involvement with drugs in a military environment, and pursuant to a joint submission made by the prosecutor and defence counsel, on 28 August 2018 the accused was sentenced to imprisonment for a period of ten months.

Back to Top

Conclusion

The 2018/19 reporting period was one that saw numerous and notable developments to the military justice system. The significant legislative developments outlined in this chapter will significantly enhance the support to victims along with improving the promptness, fairness and effectiveness of the military justice system. The reviews of the military justice system by the Office of the Auditor General and the House of Commons Standing Committee on Public Accounts contribute significantly to the continued evolution of the military justice system. The next reporting period will include the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in R v Beaudry that will undoubtedly serve as a landmark decision for the military justice system.

Given the myriad of legislative initiatives, judicial decisions and policy advancement during the reporting period, the military justice system continues to evolve in light of Canadian law and values while supporting the chain of command to ensure the discipline, efficiency and morale of members of the Canadian Armed Forces.