Military Justice Statistics

During the 2022/23 reporting period, the Office of the JAG continued to collect the most accurate available quantitative data regarding the military justice system and took further steps to enhance transparency and accountability in the system by improving monitoring, statistical analysis, and the use of technology. Nevertheless, the statistics presented in this section should be considered in the context of several significant ongoing transitions in the military justice system and the Canadian Armed Forces during the reporting period. While there is no doubt that the statistics presented accurately reflect the military justice system during the reporting period, the transitional nature of this period complicates efforts to draw definitive conclusions or a coherent narrative from the available data.

The 2022/23 reporting period saw the Canadian Armed Forces’ continuing transition away from the various precautionary measures that were put in place during the COVID 19 pandemic to protect the health and well-being of its members and prevent the spread of the virus. These measures limited the number of personnel in the workplace, restricted social gatherings and cut back on collective training. As noted in the 2021/22 Annual Report, the imposition of these measures likely had the effect of decreasing the overall use of both courts martial and summary proceedings. Conversely, their removal may well have the opposite effect, further complicating efforts to compare this reporting period’s statistics with those of previous periods.

In addition, the transition from the summary trial system to the summary hearing system complicated collecting and interpreting military justice statistics. In the first quarter of the reporting period, summary trials were the only unit-level discipline option; however, summary trials that were scheduled prior to the transition to the new summary hearing system continued to be dealt with by summary trial and were not transitioned into the new system. Additionally, because summary hearings were only available for the last three quarters of the reporting period, year over year comparisons were not straightforward assessments. Moving forward, with only one unit-level disciplinary system in place, year-over-year comparisons will be much more straightforward and more meaningful data can be compiled and analyzed.

The statistics set out below should be considered in the context of the important changes that were ongoing throughout the reporting period. While the data provides an accurate snapshot of the military justice system at this time, it may not present a reliable narrative of longer-term developments in the system or point to meaningful and enduring trends.

Back to Top

Summary Proceedings - Summary Trials and Summary Hearings

Number of Summary Proceedings

During this reporting period, there were 41 courts martial, 93 summary trials, and 245 summary hearings conducted.

Summary proceedings (summary trials and summary hearings) continue to be the most widely used form of service tribunal (courts martial, summary trials, and summary hearings) in the Canadian Armed Forces. Summary proceedings comprised approximately 89% of service tribunals, which represents a slight decline from the previous five-year average of approximately 91%. Summary hearings alone made up approximately 65% of all service tribunal proceedings and 72% of summary proceedings. This number is in keeping with expectations given the limited time that the new summary hearing system was in operation and the continued, though limited, use of summary trials during the reporting period. These numbers suggest that the introduction of summary hearings did not lead to a significant disruption in the use of summary proceedings, which are a vital means of maintaining discipline in the Canadian Armed Forces. Figure 3.1 shows the number of summary trials, summary hearings and courts martial held over the last two reporting periods as well as the corresponding percentage of cases tried by each type of service tribunal.

---

Figure 3-1: Distribution of Service Tribunals

	2021-2022		2022-2023
	#	%	#	%
Number of Courts Martial	48	10.88	41	10.82
Number of Summary Trials	393	89.12	93	24.54
Number of Summary Hearings			245	64.64
Total	441	100	379	100

Summary Proceedings by Organization

Figure 3.2 shows the total number of summary proceedings held over the last two reporting periods by organization.

---

Fig 3.2(a): Number of Summary Trials by Organization

	2021-2022		2022-2023
	#	%	#	%
Canadian Army	201	51.15	40	43.01
Royal Canadian Navy	48	12.21	6	6.45
Military Personnel Command	42	10.69	23	24.73
Royal Canadian Air Force	56	14.25	13	13.98
Canada Joint Operations Command	30	7.63	5	5.38
Canada Special Operations Forces Command	10	2.55	2	2.15
Vice Chief of Defence Staff	5	1.27	3	3.23
Assistant Deputy Minister (Information Management)	1	0.25	0	0.00
Canadian Forces Intelligence Command	0	0.00	1	1.07
Total	393	100.00	93	100.00

---

Fig 3.2(b): Number of Summary Hearings by Organization

	2022-2023
	#	%
Canadian Army	73	29.80
Royal Canadian Navy	55	22.45
Chief of Military Personnel	45	18.37
Royal Canadian Air Force	31	12.65
Canada Joint Operations Command	31	12.65
Canada Special Operations Forces Command	4	1.63
Vice Chief of the Defence Staff	5	2.04
Assistant Deputy Minister (Information Management)	1	0.41
Canadian Forces Intelligence Command	0	0.00
Total	245	100.00

Figure 3.3 illustrates the number of summary proceedings held since the 2021/22 reporting period within the following seven organizations: Canadian Army, Royal Canadian Navy, Military Personnel Command, Royal Canadian Air Force, Canadian Joint Operations Command, Vice Chief of Defence Staff, and Assistant Deputy Minister (Information Management).

---

Fig 3.3 Number of Summary Proceedings by Organization

 

For the Canadian Army, there were a total of 40 summary trials and 73 summary hearings in this reporting period. The overall total of 113 summary proceedings represents a significant decrease of approximately 44% from the previous reporting period, when the Canadian Army held 201 summary trials. This is in keeping with a long-running trend. Since 2014/15 there has been a decrease in the number of summary trials within the Canadian Army for each reporting period.

The Royal Canadian Navy has seen a fluctuation in the total number of summary trials since the 2014/15 reporting period. However, the introduction of the summary hearing system appears to have coincided with a significant increase in its use of summary proceedings. While it only held 6 summary trials during the reporting period (representing less than 6.5% of the total summary trials), it held 55 summary hearings (approximately 22% of the total summary hearings).

The Royal Canadian Air Force’s use of summary proceedings has declined slightly over the past two reporting periods. In the current reporting period, it held 13 summary trials, (13.98% of the total summary trials), and 31 summary hearings (12.7% of the total summary hearings). In the 2021/22 reporting period, the Royal Canadian Air Force accounted for 14.25% of summary trials. Prior to that, the Royal Canadian Air Force’s use of summary proceedings as percentage of the total had seen a small but steady increase, accounting for under 9% of all summary trials in the 2014/15 reporting period rising to close to 15% in 2020/21. 

In this reporting period, 68 summary proceedings were conducted within the Military Personnel Command: 23 summary trials and 45 summary hearings. This is generally in keeping with previous statistics for Military Personnel Command (listed as Chief of Military Personnel in previous reports), which accounted for between approximately 7% and 19% of summary trials since the 2015/15 reporting period.   

Finally, the Canadian Joint Operations Command held 5 summary trials and 31 summary hearings, for a total of 36 summary proceedings. This represents a 20% increase over the 30 summary trials the Canadian Joint Operations Command conducted during the previous reporting period. Since 2017/18, the number of summary proceedings held by the Canadian Joint Operations Command has varied slightly, displaying no significant pattern of increase or decrease. Between the 2014/15 and 2016/17 reporting periods, the Canadian Joint Operations Command accounted for approximately 1% and 2% of summary trials.

Number of Charges Disposed of at Summary Proceedings^{Footnote 79}

During this reporting period, 117 charges for service offences were disposed of at summary trial and 395 charges for service infractions were disposed of at summary hearing. Combined, these numbers represent a small increase over the 502 charges disposed of at summary trial during the previous reporting period. This is the second reporting period in a row that has seen an increase in the number of charges for offences/infractions disposed of at summary proceedings, following a trend of consistent decreases that began in 2017/18. Figure 3.4(a) shows the total number of charges for service offences disposed of at summary trial since 2021/22. Figure 3.4(b) shows the total number of service infractions disposed of at summary hearing.

---

Fig 3.4: Number of Charges Disposed of at Summary Proceedings

 

Most Common Offences and Infractions Disposed of at Summary Proceedings

Historically, the most common services offences disposed of at summary trial were under section 90 of the National Defence Act (absence without leave) and under section 129 (conduct to the prejudice of good order and discipline). During the 2021/22 report, for instance, these offences accounted for 81% of charges disposed of at summary trial. This pattern continued during the 2022/23 reporting period, where 66 charges for the offence of conduct to the prejudice of good order and discipline and 32 charges for the offence of absence without leave were disposed of at summary trial, accounting for approximately 84% of the total charges.

As a result of the introduction of the summary hearing system, disciplinary proceedings for service offences are no longer conducted by summary process. Instead, summary hearings deal with an entirely separate series of service infractions set out in the Queen's Regulations and Orders for the Canadian Forces. Although distinct from service offences, service infractions include two close equivalents to absence without leave and conduct to the prejudice of good order and discipline. Paragraph 120.03(f) stipulates that a person commits a service infraction who, without reasonable excuse, fails to attend or is tardy to their place of duty. Paragraph 120.03(i) establishes an infraction for behaving in a manner that adversely affects the discipline, efficiency, or morale of the Canadian Forces.

During this reporting period, summary hearings disposed of 187 infractions of behaving in a manner that adversely affects the discipline, efficiency, or morale under paragraph 120.03(i) and 83 infractions of failing to attend or being tardy to their place of duty under paragraph 120.03(f). Together, these numbers represent approximately 69% of infractions disposed of at summary hearings. This is generally consistent with the percentage of the equivalent service offences disposed of at summary trials in previous reporting periods. Figure 3.5(a) shows the number of charges for absence without leave and conduct to the prejudice of good order and discipline for the last two reporting periods, and Figure 3.5(b) shows the number of infractions of behaving in a manner that adversely affects the discipline, efficiency, or morale under paragraph 120.03(i) and the number of infractions of failing to attend or being tardy at place of duty under paragraph 120.03(f).

---

Fig 3.5: Common Offences and Infractions Disposed of Summary Proceedings

 

Number of Elections to be Tried by Court Martial

Pursuant to the former article 108.17 of the Queen’s Regulations and Orders for the Canadian Forces, an accused person was offered an election to be tried by court martial, unless the following two criteria were met:

1. each offence with which the individual had been charged was one of the following: insubordination, drunkenness, absence without leave, quarrels, and disturbances, and conduct to the prejudice of good order and discipline (where the offence relates to military training, maintenance of personal equipment, quarters or workspace, or dress and deportment); and,
2. the circumstances surrounding the commission of the offence were so minor in nature that the presiding officer concluded that a punishment of detention, reduction in rank, or a fine in excess of 25 percent of monthly basic pay would not be warranted if the accused person were found guilty of the offence.

During this reporting period, a total of 14 elections to be tried by court martial were offered to accused persons. Out of the 14 elections offered, 13 accused persons elected to be tried by summary trial, which represents 93% of the total elections offered. The remaining accused person elected to be tried by court martial, which represents 7% of the total elections offered.

---

Fig 3.6 Percentage of Elections to be Tried by Court Martial

 

Results by Charge at Summary Proceedings

The findings at summary trial, by charge, remained relatively consistent over the last five reporting periods. This reporting period saw a decrease in the percentage of guilty findings, from approximately 90% in the 2021/22 reporting period, to approximately 82% in this reporting period.

Findings of not guilty increased from approximately 8% in 2021/22 to approximately 14% in this reporting period. Moreover, the percentages of guilty and not guilty findings in this reporting period are within the range for past five reporting periods. A breakdown of the total number of findings by charge and the corresponding percentages for the last two reporting periods can be found at Figure 3.7(a).

The findings at summary hearing show results similar to those of summary trials. During the reporting period, there were 344 findings that the alleged service infraction was committed (the summary hearing equivalent of a guilty finding), representing 87% of summary hearing findings. There were 43 findings that the alleged service infraction was not committed (the equivalent of a not guilty finding), representing 11% of findings. There were 8 charges not proceeded with at summary hearing. Based on these early numbers, it appears that the move from summary trials to non-criminal and non-penal summary hearings, which included a move to the less onerous “balance of probabilities” standard of proof, has not had a significant impact on the outcome of summary proceedings. The statistics for findings at summary hearings is set out at figure 3.7(b).

---

Figure 3.7(a): Findings by Charge (Summary Trial)

	2021-2022		2022-2023
	#	%	#	%
Guilty	458	89.98	96	82.05
Guilty with Special Finding	4	0.79	0	0.00
Not guilty	40	7.86	16	13.68
Charge stayed	2	0.39	1	0.85
Charge not proceeded with	5	0.98	4	3.42
Total	509	100.00	117	100.00

---

Figure 3.7(b): Findings by Charge (Summary Hearing)

	2022-2023
	#	%
Charge not proceeded with	8	2.02
Found to have committed service infraction alleged	344	87.09
Not found to have committed service infraction alleged	43	10.89
Total	395	100.00

 

Punishments, Absolute Discharges and Sanctions at Summary Proceedings

In this reporting period, there were a total of 111 punishments and absolute discharges imposed at summary trial.^{Footnote 80}  Fines and extra work and drill continued to be the most commonly imposed punishments, accounting for 87% of all punishments. In this reporting period, the punishment of detention was not imposed. This is consistent with a decrease in the imposition of detention as a punishment over the past three reporting periods. During the 2020/21 period, detention was imposed twice and once in the 2021/22 reporting period. Figure 3.8(a) shows the number of absolute discharges and punishments by type that were imposed at summary trial for the last two reporting periods, as well as the corresponding percentages.

Compared to the sanctions that could be imposed by a summary trial, there are fewer sanctions available at a summary hearing. From most to least severe, the available sanctions are: reduction in rank, severe reprimand, reprimand, deprivation of pay and deprivation of allowances for no more than 18 days, and minor sanctions, which include confinement to ship or barracks for no more than 14 days, extra work and drill for no more than 14 days, and the withholding of leave for no more than 30 days. Reflecting the non-penal nature of the summary hearing system, an OCSH does not have authority to impose detention as a sanction. Nor can an OCSH impose a fine, though deprivation of pay and deprivation of allowances may have a similar impact as a fine. Deprivation of pay was the most common sanction imposed at summary hearings during this reporting period, accounting for over 40% of sanctions. Confinement to ship or barracks and extra work and drill were both equally imposed sanctions, each accounting for approximately 20% of sanctions imposed. Figure 3.8(b) shows the number and percentages of sanctions, by type, that were imposed at summary hearing during the 2022/23 reporting period.

---

Figure 3.8(a): Punishments (Summary Trial)

	2021-2022		2022-2023
	#	%	#	%
Detention	1	0.21	0	0.00
Reduction in rank	1	0.21	0	0.00
Severe reprimand	2	0.43	0	0.00
Reprimand	24	5.12	9	8.11
Fine	299	63.75	72	64.86
Confinement to ship or barracks	84	17.91	13	11.71
Extra work and drill	52	11.09	15	13.52
Stoppage of leave	1	0.21	1	0.90
Absolute discharge	5	1.07	1	0.90
Total	469	100.00	407	100.00

---

Figure 2-11: Punishments and Absolute Discharges at Summary Trial

	2022-2023
	#	%
Reduction in rank	1	0.26
Reprimand	18	4.64
Confinement to ship or barracks	80	20.62
Extra work and drill	78	20.10
Stoppage of leave	17	4.38
Deprivation of allowances	33	8.51
Deprivation of pay	161	41.49
Total	467	100

 

Reviews of Summary Proceedings

Under the summary trial system, there were two means by which a guilty finding or a punishment imposed by a summary trial could be reviewed under the Queen’s Regulations and Orders for the Canadian Forces: the member found guilty could request a review under former article 108.45 or a review authority could initiate the review on their own initiative under article 116.02.

During the 2022/23 reporting period, a total of 5 summary trials were reviewed, representing slightly more than 5% of the 93 summary trials conducted during the reporting period. This is a decrease from the 8% of summary trials that were reviewed in both the 2021/22 and 2020/21 reporting periods. Of the reviews, one was based on findings, 2 were based on sentencing, and 2 were based on both findings and sentencing. In relation to a review of a summary trial, a review authority could render one of the following decisions: to uphold the presiding officer’s decision; to quash a guilty finding; or to substitute a finding or punishment imposed at a summary trial. In this reporting period, review authorities quashed the findings in 60% of summary trials for which a review was undertaken. Additionally, review authorities upheld 40% of the decisions of presiding officers. A complete breakdown of all decisions of summary trial review authorities for the past two reporting periods can be found at Figure 3.9(a).

The rules with respect to reviews for the summary hearing system are set out in sections 163.6 to 163.9 of the National Defence Act and Chapter 124 of the Queen’s Regulations and Orders for the Canadian Forces. As with summary trials, a review of a summary hearing can be initiated at the request of the member who was found to have committed a service infraction or on the initiative of a review authority. During the 2022/23 reporting period, there were 9 reviews of summary hearings, representing 3.7% of the 245 of the summary hearings.

Review authorities for summary hearings have similar powers to those of summary trial review authorities. They can uphold the finding that the member committed the service infraction, quash that finding, or substitute a finding or sanction imposed at a summary hearing. During this reporting period, review authorities upheld three findings, quashed one finding and substituted one finding. With respect to sanctions imposed at summary hearings, review authorities substituted three sanctions and remitted one. A breakdown of all decisions of summary hearing review authorities for the past two reporting periods can be found at Figure 3.9(b).

---

Fig 3.9(a): Decision of Review Authority

	2021-2022		2022-2023
	#	%	#	%
Upholds decision	5	17.24	2	40
Quashes findings	22	75.86	3	60
Substitutes punishment	1	3.45	0	0
Mitigates punishment	0	0.00	0	0
Substitutes findings	1	3.45	0	0
Commutes punishment	0	0.00	0	0
Remits punishment	0	0.00	0	0
Total	29	100.00	5	100

---

Fig 3.9(b): Decision of Review Authority (Summary Hearings)

	2022-2023
	#	%
Quashes findings	1	11.11
Remits sanction	1	11.11
Substitutes findings	1	11.11
Substitutes sanction	3	33.33
Upholds decision	3	33.33
Mitigates sanction	0	0.00
Commutes sanction	0	0.00
Total	9	100.00

 

Language of Summary Proceedings

Pursuant to former article 108.16 of the Queen’s Regulations and Orders for the Canadian Forces, accused persons had the right to be tried by summary trial in the official language of their choice. Article 121.07 of the Queen’s Regulations and Orders for the Canadian Forces performs a similar function for the conduct of summary hearings, requiring that the OCSH be able to understand the language in which the proceedings are to be conducted without the assistance of an interpreter.

In this reporting period, approximately 71% of summary trials and 86% of summary hearings were conducted in English. Approximately 29% of summary trials and 14% of summary hearings were conducted in French. These numbers are broadly consistent with the previous reporting period. Figures 3.10(a) and (b) show the total number of summary trials and hearings conducted in both English and French for the past two reporting periods.

---

Fig 3.10(a): Language at Summary Trial

	2021-2022		2022-2023
	#	%	#	%
Number in English	287	73.03	66	70.97
Number in French	106	26.97	27	29.03
Total	393	100.00	93	100.00

---

Fig 3.10(b): Language at Summary Hearing

	2022-2023
	#	%
Number in English	212	86.53
Number in French	33	13.47
Total	245	100.00

 

Timeline of Summary Proceedings

The purpose of both summary trials and summary hearings is to provide prompt and fair justice in respect of minor breaches of discipline. In order to achieve this, it is essential that the procedure allow for a minimal delay between the time the alleged offence or infraction occurred and the time the hearing or trial is completed.

The rules applicable to both types of summary proceedings imposed strict limitation periods. Summary trials were required to begin within one year of the date on which the offence was alleged to have occurred, unless this limitation period was waived by the accused person.^{Footnote 81} With the introduction of summary hearings, the limitation period was halved. A summary hearing may not be conducted unless it commences within six months after the day on which the service infraction is alleged to have been committed. This limitation period cannot be waived under the summary hearing procedure; if the limitation period has passed, there is no jurisdiction to hear the matter and the charge cannot proceed to hearing.

This reporting period saw 93 summary trials completed, and the average time from the alleged offence to the conclusion of the summary trial was approximately 48 days. Of these 93 summary trials, 41 concluded within 90 days of the alleged offence, representing approximately 44% of all summary trials for the reporting period. Further, approximately 76% of summary trials were concluded within 180 days of the alleged offence. Figure 3.11(a) shows a breakdown of the number of days from the alleged offence to the conclusion of the summary trial.

As may be expected given the shorter limitation period, the summary hearings conducted during this reporting period were completed in less time than the summary trials. For the 245 summary hearings completed, the average time from the alleged infraction to the conclusion of the hearing was 24 days. Approximately 60% of the summary hearings were completed within 90 days of the alleged infraction and all but two summary hearing were completed within 180 days. Figure 3.11(b) shows a breakdown of the number of days from the alleged infraction to the conclusion of the summary hearing.

---

Fig 3.11: Number of Days from Alleged Offence to Conclusion of Summary Trial and from Alleged Infraction to Conclusion of Summary Hearing

 

 

Statistics on the Use of Summary Hearings during the Reporting Period

While it is still too soon to draw any definitive conclusions about the efficiency and effectiveness of summary hearings, the statistics available from the 2022/23 reporting period point to encouraging signs that the new procedure has been readily adopted as a fast, fair, and easily accessible tool for maintaining discipline at the unit level.

The introduction of summary hearings did not result in a significant drop-off in the use of summary proceedings. Summary hearings alone made up approximately 65% of service tribunal proceedings and 72% of summary proceedings (see figure 3.1). Moreover, there was an overall increase, with some fluctuation, from month to month in the number of summary hearings conducted. In July 2022, the first full month in which the new procedure was in force, there were 7 summary hearings, while the number peaked in March 2023, the final month of the reporting period, with 46 summary hearings. These numbers suggests that Canadian Armed Forces units felt comfortable relying on the new procedure as a means of addressing minor breaches of discipline.

It also appears that the summary hearing system is proving to be portable.  The Canadian Armed Forces deploys across the globe and to serve as an effective disciplinary tool, summary hearings must be able to be held wherever a unit is located when an alleged service infraction occurs. During the reporting period, summary hearings were used to address infractions that occurred on a range of deployments, exercises, and other Canadian Armed Forces activities outside of Canada. During the reporting period, summary hearings disposed of approximately 30 charges for infractions alleged to have been committed on board Royal Canadian Navy ships and appropriately 70 charges for infractions alleged to have been committed by Canadian Armed Forces members deployed abroad.

Charges for Service Infractions Disposed of at Summary Hearings

OCSHs have jurisdiction to determine whether Canadian Armed Forces members committed service infractions. Service infractions are distinct from service offences over which courts martial have, and the former summary trial procedure had, jurisdiction. Chapter 120 of the Queen’s Regulations and Order for the Canadian Forces sets out three categories of service infractions that cover a broad range of relatively minor disciplinary misconduct: infractions in relation to property and information, infractions in relation to military service, and infractions in relation to drugs and alcohol. 

Each of these categories is further divided into individual service infractions. As noted previously, several of the infractions are similar to service offences (see figures 3.5(a) and 3.5(b)). However, many of the service infractions provide greater specificity as to the nature of the alleged misconduct than service offences. For instance, whereas previously such things as the unauthorized discharge of a weapon or the failure to disclose a conflict of interest may have resulted in charges for the service offence of conduct to the prejudice of good order and discipline (s. 129 of the National Defence Act), under the summary hearing procedure, there are individual service infractions to specifically address both types of misconduct: paragraphs 120.03(b) (a person commits an infraction who discharges a firearm without authorization), and 120.02(d) (a person commits an infraction who fails to disclose actual, apparent or potential conflicts between their duties and private interests) of the Queen’s Regulations and Orders for the Canadian Forces. The greater specificity of service infractions allows the Canadian Armed Forces to more closely monitor the particular disciplinary issues arising at the unit level.

Of the three categories of service infractions, the most charged is service infractions in relation to military service, under article 120.03 of the Queen’s Regulations and Orders for the Canadian Forces. Charges under this article accounted for 363 of the 395 charges for service infractions during this reporting period, representing approximately 92% of the total. This may be because article 120.03 includes nine individual service infractions, the highest number of the three categories. It also includes the two most common charges disposed of at summary hearings: paragraph 120.03(f) (a person commits a service infraction who, without reasonable excuse, fails to attend or is tardy to their place of duty) and paragraph 120.03(i) (a person commits an infraction who behaves in a manner that adversely affects the discipline, efficiency, or morale of the Canadian Forces).  These two infractions account for approximately 21% and 47% of all charges disposed of, respectively. The other service infractions in relation to military service most commonly disposed of at summary hearing were paragraph 120.03(e) (a person commits a service infraction who, in relation to military service, furnishes false or misleading information or engages in deceitful conduct) accounting for approximately 7% of all charges, and 120(b) (A person commits a service infraction who discharges a firearm without authorization) accounting for approximately 6%.

There were 24 charges disposed of at summary hearing for service infractions in relation to drugs and alcohol under article 120.04 of the Queen’s Regulations and Orders for the Canadian Forces, accounting for approximately 6% of the total. The most common charge disposed of under this article was paragraph 120.04(a) (a person commits an infraction who, while on duty, is impaired by a drug or alcohol) accounting for 3% of all charges. There were 8 charges disposed of for service infractions in relation to property and information under article 120.02, accounting for 2% of the total. Figure 3.12 provides the number and percentage of charges for each category service infraction disposed of at summary hearing during the 2022/23 reporting period. A more detailed list of each infraction disposed of at summary hearing is provided at Annex A.

---

Figure 3.12: Number of Infractions disposed of at summary hearing, arranged by provision

	2022-2023
	#	%
120.02 - INFRACTIONS IN RELATION TO PROPERTY AND INFORMATION	8	2.02
120.03 - INFRACTIONS IN RELATION TO MILITARY SERVICE	363	91.90
120.04 - INFRACTIONS IN RELATION TO DRUGS AND ALCOHOL	24	6.08
Total	395	100.00

 

Summary Hearings by Rank

One of the innovations of the summary hearing procedure is the removal of the limit on the rank of the Canadian Armed Forces members who may be subject to a summary proceeding. Under the former procedure, officers holding the rank of Lieutenant-Colonel or higher could not be tried by way of summary trial and service offence charges against them could only be disposed of at court martial. That limitation has now been removed and members of the Canadian Armed Forces may now be charged with service infractions and subject to a summary hearing, regardless of their rank.

During the reporting period, there were a total of 176 summary hearings for junior non-commissioned members^{Footnote 82} and 24 for senior non-commissioned members.^{Footnote 83} For officers, there were 20 summary hearings for subordinate officers (officer cadets/naval cadets), 20 hearings for junior officers (between Second Lieutenant/Acting sub-Lieutenant and Captain/Lieutenant (Navy)), and 5 hearings for senior officers (Major/Lieutenant Commander and above). Of the last group, there was one summary hearing for a Lieutenant-Colonel and one for a Colonel, two officers who would not have been subject to summary proceedings under the summary trial procedure. Figure 3.13 sets out the number and percentage of summary hearings organized by the rank of the person alleged to have committed the service infraction.

---

Figure 3.13: Number Summary Hearings by Rank of Accused

	2022-2023
	#	%
Corporal / Sailor 1st Class	78	31.84
Private / Aviator / Sailor 2nd Class	39	15.91
Private (Basic) / Sailor 3rd Class	35	14.29
Master Corporal / Master Sailor	23	9.39
Officer Cadet / Naval Cadet	20	8.16
Sergeant / Petty Officer 2nd Class	14	5.71
Captain / Lieutenant (Navy)	10	4.08
Warrant Officer / Petty Officer 1st Class	7	2.86
Second Lieutenant / Acting Sub-Lieutenant	6	2.46
Lieutenant / Sub-Lieutenant	5	2.04
Major / Lieutenant-Commander	3	1.22
Master Warrant Officer / Chief Petty Officer 2nd Class	3	1.22
Colonel / Captain (Navy)	1	0.41
Lieutenant-Colonel / Commander	1	0.41
Total	245	100.00

 

Timeline for Steps in the Summary Hearing System

An essential feature of the summary hearing procedure is its ability to dispose of charges quickly. Summary proceedings are intended to allow Canadian Armed Forces units to address misconduct as promptly as possible while still maintaining a fair process. Delays in addressing disciplinary issues allow problems to persist and adversely impact a unit’s morale and efficiency. The average number of days between an alleged infraction and the conclusion of the summary hearing during the reporting period is 24 days shorter than the equivalent period under the summary trial procedure (see figures 3.11(a) and (b)). Moreover, the summary hearing procedure has accelerated each step in the process. For instance, the average number of days elapsing between charges being laid and the completion of the summary hearing during the reporting period was 24 days, compared to 47 days for summary trials. Likewise, the summary hearing process has proved quicker to commence following an alleged infractions and faster to complete a review following a hearing. Figure 3.14(a) and (b) show the average time from charge laying to completion of the summary trial and summary hearing for the past two reporting periods.

---

Figure 3.14: Average Time (Days) from Charge Laying to the Conclusion of Summary Trial and Summary Hearing

 

Courts Martial

Number of Courts Martial

During this reporting period, 41 courts martial were conducted, representing approximately 11% of all proceedings held by service tribunals. This is a slight decrease from the 48 courts martial held during the previous reporting period. Figure 3.15 sets out the number of courts martial for the past two reporting periods.

---

Fig 3.15: Number of Courts Martial

 

Results by Case at Court Martial

Of the 41 courts martial held during this reporting period, 32 cases resulted in a finding of guilty on at least one charge; 9 cases resulted in a finding of not guilty on all charges or a stay of proceedings; in 0 cases the accused was found not criminally responsible on account of a mental disorder; 0 cases resulted in a termination of proceedings; and 0 cases resulted in all charges being withdrawn. Figure 3.16 shows the disposition by case over the past two reporting periods.

---

Fig 3.16: Disposition of Cases at Courts Martial

	2021-2022		2022-2023
	#	%	#	%
Found Guilty of at Least One Charge	33	68.75	32	78.05
Not Guilty of All Charges or Stay of Proceedings	14	29.17	9	21.95
Not Criminally Responsible	1	2.08	0	0.00
Withdrawal of All Charges	0	0.00	0	0.00
Termination of Proceedings	0	0.00	0	0.00
Total	48	100.00	41	100.00

 

Referrals Received by the Director of Military Prosecutions

During this reporting period, the Director of Military Prosecutions received a total of 60 new referrals or requests for charges to proceed for trial by court martial, a decrease of 31 cases from the 2021/22 reporting period. This number does not include referrals that were carried over from the previous reporting period. Figure 3.17 shows the number of referrals received by the Director of Military Prosecutions over the last two reporting periods.

---

Fig 3.17 : Number of Referrals Received by the Director of Military Prosecutions

Preferrals and Non-Preferrals

During this reporting period, the Director of Military Prosecutions proceeded with charges or preferred charges in 41 cases for trial by courts martial. There were 11 cases where the Director of Military Prosecutions did not proceed with or prefer any charges and 6 files were referred back to a unit to try the accused person by summary proceeding. These numbers include 12 files that were received during the previous reporting period. Of the 60 referrals the Director of Military Prosecutions received during the reporting period, 14 files were still pending a decision on preferral at the end of the reporting period.  Figure 3.18 illustrates the number of cases preferred by the Director of Military Prosecutions and the number of files where no charges were preferred over the past two reporting periods.

---

Fig 3.18: Number of Cases Preferred by the Director of Military Prosecutions

Punishments at Court Martial

Figure 3.19 breaks down the punishments imposed by courts martial over the past two reporting periods. ­The most common punishments imposed continue to be fines, followed by severe reprimands.

---

Fig 3.19: Punishments at Courts Martial

	2021-2022	2022-2023
Dismissal*	1	2
Imprisonment	6	5**
Detention	2	1
Reduction in Rank	4	3
Forfeiture of Seniority	0	0
Severe Reprimand	8	10
Reprimand	6	8
Fine	21	26
Confinement to ship or barracks	3	4
Stoppage of leave	0	0
Absolute discharge	0	1
Total	51	60
* Includes dismissal with disgrace. ** One of these punishments was suspended by the Military Judge.