Conclusion

The 2023/24 reporting period was a period of consolidation for both tiers of the military justice system in which new procedures reached a sustained operational tempo and existing authorities were reaffirmed and reinforced. These developments at both levels paint a picture of a military justice system that serves an important function: maintaining the discipline, morale, and efficiency of the Canadian Armed Forces while ensuring the rights and freedoms of its members are adequately protected.

At the unit level, this was reflected in the steady adoption of the summary hearing system as a means of addressing minor misconduct. As the statistics in chapter three illustrate, summary hearings were used consistently throughout the reporting period, with some fluctuation, across all organizations within the Canadian Armed Forces. This suggests that the new system is meeting its desired goal of providing units with a fair and effective tool to maintain discipline. Moreover, the encouraging statistics with respect to the number of days between an alleged infraction and the completion of a summary hearing provide evidence that the system is operating efficiently, allowing units to deal with disciplinary issues in an expeditious manner with minimal demand on time and resources. As the Office of the JAG continues to collect the best available statistical information on the operation of the summary hearing system going forward, the statistics presented in this Annual Report will serve as a crucial baseline, allowing us to track developments in the system, both positive and negative, in future reports.  

In the court martial system, the R v Edwards case saw a continuation of the long-standing role of the Supreme Court of Canada in guiding the evolution of the military justice system. The Court’s decision in R v Edwards confirmed the constitutionality of a critical feature of the court martial system, namely the status of military judges as members of the Canadian Armed Forces. In so doing, the Court reviewed its involvement in the development of military justice, going back to R v Généreux, its first major decision of the Charter era. In that case, and in the cases that followed, the Court found that a separate military justice system, operating alongside its civilian counterpart as an integral part of the Canadian legal mosaic, was both a constitutionally sound exercise of Parliament’s authority and consistent with Charter requirements. Where the Supreme Court has found specific aspects of the system to be unconstitutional, this has been the impetus for improvement and reform that has ensured military justice remains aligned with developing legal norms. Overall, the Court has consistently found the modern building blocks of military justice, with independent military judges who are also military officers, to be constitutionally sound. 

The fact that the 2023/24 reporting period was one of consolidation for the military justice system in no way means that its evolution has come to an end. As society changes, military justice must keep pace, and the coming year will undoubtedly bring a new set of challenges to engage the talent and energy of the Office of the JAG. These may include such tasks as supporting parliamentarians in their study of Bill C-66, the continuation of the Comprehensive Implementation Plan, and the rollout of the new Justice Administration and Information Management System, an electronic case management tool designed to modernize the military justice system at the unit level. Whatever the task, the Office of the JAG is committed to supporting the Minister and the Defence community in their efforts to meet those challenges.