Brian D. Wentzell

The appellant, a Corporal in the Canadian Armed Forces, was convicted by a General Court Martial of sexual assault and sentenced to 42 days detention, with a mandatory 20-year Sex Offender Information Registration Act (SOIRA) order imposed.

The appellant appealed the conviction, arguing his prior consistent statement was improperly excluded, and appealed the SOIRA order, seeking a personal remedy under s. 24(1) of the Charter based on R. v. Ndhlovu.

The Court Martial Appeal Court dismissed the conviction appeal, holding the military judge correctly excluded the self-serving hearsay statement.

However, the Court allowed the sentence appeal and set aside the SOIRA order, finding the military judge erred in law by focusing exclusively on the risk of reoffending and failing to consider whether the order's impact, particularly travel restrictions affecting his military career, was grossly disproportionate.

The applicant, a Naval Cadet, was convicted of sexual assault and sentenced to two years' incarceration.

He applied for a stay of execution of his sentence pending the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in Edwards et al., which involves a constitutional challenge to the independence and impartiality of military courts.

The Court Martial Appeal Court of Canada granted the stay, noting that the Supreme Court's recent decision to grant leave to appeal in Edwards et al. created uncertainty regarding the validity of the applicant's conviction.

The Court found that the applicant did not pose a flight risk or a danger to the public, and that the balance of convenience favoured granting the stay to preserve the applicant's right to a trial by an independent and impartial court.

The appellant, a Naval Cadet convicted of sexual assault at a court martial, appealed on the basis that the subjugation of military judges to the Code of Service Discipline violates the right to an independent and impartial tribunal under section 11(d) of the Charter.

The Court Martial Appeal Court dismissed the appeal, relying on its previous decisions in Edwards, Proulx, Christmas, and Brown, which had already determined that the military justice structure does not violate the Charter.