The Year in Review
Pursuant to subsection 9.3(2) of the National Defence Act,Footnote 1 the Judge Advocate General is required to report annually to the Minister of National Defence (the Minister) on the administration of military justice in the Canadian Armed Forces. This report covers the period from April 1, 2024 to March 31, 2025.
Highlights from the Year in Military Justice
The 2024/2025 reporting period saw a number of notable developments in the military justice system, including the introduction of updated military justice system time standards to improve efficiency, transparency, and accountability, ongoing work on military judges’ compensation, the rollout of the new version of the Justice Administration and Information Management System (JAIMS) and an updated Military Justice System Performance Monitoring Framework (PMF) to report objective data on the effectiveness, efficiency, and legitimacy of the military justice system. The reporting period also saw the appointment of two new military judges and the designation of a new Chief Justice of the Court Martial Appeal Court, as well as crucial steps taken toward the implementation of the recommendations contained in several external review reports.Footnote 2 This included work with respect to the Permanent Military Court Working Group and Bill C-66, Military Justice System Modernization Act (Bill C-66).Footnote 3 The discussions of each of these developments are arranged chronologically below, concluding with the ongoing work regarding the implementation of the recommendations of the various military justice external reviews.
Updated Military Justice System Time Standards
Time standards for every phase of the military justice system were developed in 2019. These enhance the efficiency of the military justice system by ensuring each step in the process is conducted in a timely manner. The Office of the JAG updated the Military Justice System Time Standards in collaboration with various military justice actors following the coming into force of Bill C-77, An Act to amend the National Defence Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts (Bill C-77).Footnote 4 Work culminated in April 2024 with the publication of an updated policy that applies to the administration of both alleged service infractions and service offences.
Justice Administration and Information Management System
As part of the effort to modernize the military justice system by leveraging new technology, the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces began the implementation of the new version of JAIMS, updated to reflect the changes to the military justice system introduced by Bill C-77. JAIMS is an electronic case management tool designed by the Digital Services Group with subject matter expertise from the Office of the JAG. Launched in a phased approach since January 2025, the new version of JAIMS now serves as the primary means to administer military justice at the unit level, from the reporting of an alleged infraction, through to investigation, charge laying, summary hearing disposition, and the review of a file when applicable. By electronically tracking the entire lifecycle of military justice cases at the unit level, JAIMS provides accessible, accurate and timely information on case status to commanders, improving the administration of military justice at the unit level and ensuring cases progress efficiently and also assists the Judge Advocate General in fulfilling their statutory duty as superintendent of the administration of military justice. JAIMS’ implementation is supported by the JAIMS Centre of Excellence which is comprised of regional contacts who assist with the onboarding of every unit with a disciplinary case.
Updated Military Justice System Performance Monitoring Framework
The PMF is a performance measurement system capable of delivering quantitative and measurable qualitative data. The PMF uses a robust series of justice indicators which will report objective data on the effectiveness, efficiency, and legitimacy of the military justice system. The indicators will enable the Judge Advocate General, as superintendent of the administration of military justice, to monitor the performance of the military justice system, draw attention to potential issues, assist with the development of benchmarks for future performance, and monitor the impact of changes to the military justice system. The indicators will provide valuable feedback to policymakers and will ultimately make the military justice system more transparent. Originally reported on in the 2019/2020 Annual Report, the PMF was comprehensively updated to account for the changes to the military justice system introduced by Bill C-77.Footnote 5 The updated PMF is expected to be approved by the Judge Advocate General and published in the near future.
Military Judges Compensation Committee
The Military Judges Compensation Committee is a body created by Parliament to ensure an independent, objective, and depoliticized process for inquiring into the adequacy of military judicial compensation. The Committee, mandated under the National Defence ActFootnote 6 to submit recommendations to the Minister every four years, performs a similar role and operates according to similar legal principles as its civilian counterpart, the Judicial Compensation and Benefits Commission. In making recommendations on the remuneration level for military judges, the Committee considers such factors as the need to attract highly qualified candidates to the Bench, the necessity of ensuring judicial independence, and the prevailing economic conditions in Canada.
On July 31, 2024, the Minister accepted the recommendations of the Military Judges Compensation Committee for the period from 2019 to 2023, which included that military judges be remunerated in parity with other federally appointed judges and receive a new annual incidental allowance.
Footnote 7 Since then, work has been underway to ensure that the necessary regulatory amendments regarding military judicial compensation are implemented in a timely manner. Work has also been ongoing to support the establishment of the next Military Judges Compensation Committee, tasked with making recommendations regarding military judges’ compensation for the period from 2023 to 2027.
The Appointment of New Military Judges
On August 28, 2024, the Governor in Council appointed two new military judges: Colonel Nancy Isenor and Colonel Steven Strickey. Both Colonels Isenor and Strickey, who have extensive experience working in the field of military justice as legal officers with the Office of the JAG, were formally sworn in as military judges on November 15, 2024. Captain (Navy) Catherine Julie Deschênes, who had been designated as the new Chief Military Judge in March 2024, was formally sworn in to that position at the same ceremony.
Designation of a New Chief Justice of the Court Martial Appeal Court
On October 11, 2024, the Prime Minister announced that the Governor in Council had designated the Honourable Mary J.L. Gleason as the new Chief Justice of the Court Martial Appeal Court of Canada (CMAC). Prior to her appointment to the Federal Court in 2011, Chief Justice Gleason had been recognized as one of Canada’s leading labour and employment law practitioners, taking an active part in professional organizations and legal academia. She served on the Canada Industrial Relations Board's client consultation committee and was involved with the Federal Court’s labour law, human rights, privacy, and access review liaison group. She was appointed to the CMAC in 2013 and to the Federal Court of Appeal in June 2015. Her swearing in ceremony as Chief Justice of the CMAC took place on November 19, 2024.
Under Chief Justice Gleason’s leadership, the CMAC is expected to continue shaping military justice jurisprudence while also enhancing awareness and understanding of the military justice system within the broader legal community. Notably, Chief Justice Gleason initiated a new Bench and Bar forum to promote dialogue between the judiciary and legal practitioners engaged in military justice. At its inaugural meeting on June 13, 2024, participants raised concerns about resourcing pressures facing the Courts Administration Service. The Judge Advocate General will continue to monitor this issue closely to assess any potential impacts on the administration and effectiveness of the military justice system.
The service of Chief Justice Gleason’s predecessor, the Honourable Elizabeth Bennett, as Acting Chief Justice following the retirement of former Chief Justice Richard Bell in October 2023 must also be recognized. During Justice Bennett’s time as Acting Chief Justice, the CMAC was involved in a number of important decisions, including R v Ellison,Footnote 8 which clarified the application of the test for no prima facie case, and R v Crouch,Footnote 9 which considered the threshold to overturn an acquittal when inferences are made concerning impermissible myths and stereotypes surrounding sexual assault.
Implementation of External Review Recommendations
Throughout the 2024/2025 reporting period, work continued on the analysis and implementation of the recommendations contained in the Report of the Third Independent Review Authority to the Minister of National Defence (IR3)Footnote 10 by former Supreme Court Justice Morris J. Fish, the Report of the Independent External Comprehensive Review of the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces (IECR)Footnote 11 by former Supreme Court Justice Louise Arbour and other external review reports. This effort is tracked using the Department of National Defence and Canadian Armed Forces’ Comprehensive Implementation Plan 2023 – 2028 (CIP). The CIP is a multi-year plan that prioritizes, structures, and harmonizes work happening across the organization to modernize the military justice system.Footnote 12 It aims to create a more open, transparent, and accountable approach to culture change and military justice modernization initiatives. The CIP incorporates recommendations from four key external review reports: the IR3,Footnote 13 IECR,Footnote 14 the Minister’s Advisory Panel on Systemic Racism and Discrimination Report,Footnote 15 and the National Apology Advisory Committee Report.Footnote 16
As part of the CIP, the Office of the JAG is the lead organization for the implementation of 77 recommendations across all phases and supports other organizations for the advancement of numerous other recommendations. During the 2024/2025 reporting period, five recommendations scheduled for implementation in the 2024 phase of the CIP were either substantially or fully implemented and one recommendation scheduled for the 2025 phase was fully implemented ahead of schedule.Footnote 17
Two major highlights of the ongoing work towards analyzing and implementing the external review recommendations include the work of the Permanent Military Court Working Group and Bill C-66, which died on the order paper.
Permanent Military Court Working Group
In order to increase the perception of independence, improve efficiency and reduce delays associated with the ad hoc nature of courts martial, the IR3 recommended the creation of a permanent military court for the Canadian Armed Forces. The Permanent Military Court Working Group was established in late 2022 to identify the most effective framework for the creation of such a court under section 101 of the Constitution Act, 1867.Footnote 18 The Working Group is a joint endeavour between the Office of the JAG and the Department of Justice Canada and includes an Independent Authority, whose background is in court administration. Its work consists of undertaking consultations, developing legal opinions, considering options for the establishment of the new court, and producing a report to the Minister and the Minister of Justice. During the 2024/2025 reporting period, it met three times, produced a consultation paper, and commenced the consultation process, starting with the military chain of command.
Bill C-66, Military Justice System Modernization Act
Throughout the 2024/2025 reporting period, the Office of the JAG was engaged in supporting Parliament’s consideration of Bill C-66. Tabled in the House of Commons in March 2024, Bill C-66 proposed changes to the National Defence Act aimed at modernizing the military justice system by responding to a number of recommendations made by the IR3 and the IECR. The Bill was at second reading in the House of Commons when it died on the order paper as a result of the prorogation of Parliament on January 6, 2025.
Military Justice in Support of Deployed Operations
As global tensions rise, the Canadian Armed Forces’ role supporting Canada's foreign policy objectives and international security commitments through its deployed operations grows ever more important. One aspect of deployed operations that should not be overlooked is the critical role that the military justice system plays in ensuring the discipline, efficiency, and morale of the Canadian Armed Forces in these operations.
In recent years, the Canadian Armed Forces have been engaged in a wide range of deployed operations both within Canada and internationally. In all of these operations, the military justice system has a crucial role to play. Even when not deployed, different demands are required of the military justice system compared to its civilian counterpart. As the Supreme Court of Canada observed in R v Généreux, “breaches of military discipline must be dealt with speedily and, frequently, punished more severely than would be the case if a civilian engaged in such conduct. [...] There is thus a need for separate tribunals to enforce special disciplinary standards in the military.”Footnote 19 In the challenging environment of an operational theatre, the need for an efficient, decisive, and fair system of justice highlighted in Généreux is all the more pressing. In such circumstances, time and resources may be scarce, and the need to maintain unit cohesion and operational effectiveness is paramount.
The military justice tool most readily available to commanders in the field is the summary hearing system, specifically designed to provide a fast, flexible, and fair process to address service infractions covering a wide variety of minor disciplinary misconduct. Compared to courts martial, summary hearings require little in the way of administrative or logistical support and can be completed relatively quickly, making them ideally suited for use in an operational environment.
While the overall trend in the modernization of the court martial system has been an evolution towards something closer to Canada’s civilian system, the military justice system possesses certain attributes that civilian courts do not have, and that are essential to fulfilling its military purpose. One of those essential attributes is the ability to conduct courts martial anywhere in the world. Achieving a balance between a constitutionally compliant, procedurally robust court martial system, and one that has the flexibility to be deployed in the austere environment of a theatre of operations is an ongoing challenge. Given the complexity, time, and resources involved, court martial proceedings are not frequently held outside of Canada, including in theatres of operations. Despite these challenges, it is vital to ensure the deployability of courts martial; as the Supreme Court of Canada remarked recently in R v Edwards, “Canadians expect [...] an operationally ready and portable courts martial system.”Footnote 20
The use of technology provides some assistance in addressing these challenges. The availability and operability of communications technology means that physical presence in a courtroom is no longer an absolute requirement for participation in a proceeding. However, the most effective and durable response to these challenges may be found in our people rather than technology, through the cultivation and maintenance of an operational mindset with respect to the military justice system. Without sacrificing the important gains that have been made in recent years to align Canadian military justice with the country’s civilian legal and cultural norms, it is important not to lose sight of the reason why a separate military justice system exists: to ensure the readiness and operational effectiveness of the Canadian Armed Forces by maintaining discipline, efficiency, and morale.Footnote 21 This underlying purpose should serve as a guide for the continued evolution of the military justice system, ensuring that it has the right people, procedures, and resources in place so that it will always be ready for service when the need arises.
Conclusion
As Canada's role in the world evolves, its military justice system must also evolve and adapt to the challenges and opportunities this change brings. The Judge Advocate General remains dedicated to supporting this process, ensuring that it unfolds in a way that both upholds the rule of law and meets the unique needs of the Canadian Armed Forces.