CMAC 2022

The appellant, a member of the Canadian Armed Forces, appealed his court martial convictions for sexual assault.

At trial, the appellant sought to introduce evidence of the complainant's prior sexual activity with a third party to establish a motive to fabricate the allegations.

The Military Judge dismissed the application at Stage One under section 278.93 of the Criminal Code, finding the evidence irrelevant and based on prohibited twin myths, and refused to hold a Stage Two admissibility hearing.

The Court Martial Appeal Court allowed the appeal, holding that the proposed evidence was logically relevant to assessing credibility and a potential motive to fabricate, without engaging the prohibited stereotypes.

The Court declined to apply the curative proviso, as the error was not harmless and the evidence of guilt was not overwhelming.

A new trial was ordered.

The Crown appealed a military judge's decision terminating court martial proceedings against the respondent for sexual assault.

The alleged offences occurred in 1998, prior to the coming into force of Bill C-25, which amended s. 70 of the National Defence Act to give military courts concurrent jurisdiction over sexual assaults committed in Canada.

The issue on appeal was whether the amendment applied retrospectively.

The Court Martial Appeal Court held that Parliament did not express a clear intent for the amendment to apply retrospectively.

Furthermore, the amendment affected substantive rights, including the right to a jury trial and the right not to be subjected to more severe punishment, as the military system only prosecutes sexual assault by indictment and does not offer conditional discharges.

Therefore, the presumption against retrospective application applied.

The appeal was dismissed, confirming that service tribunals lack jurisdiction to try sexual assaults alleged to have occurred in Canada prior to September 1, 1999.

The appellant, a Bombardier in the Canadian Armed Forces, was convicted of disgraceful conduct and administering a noxious thing after distributing cannabis-laced cupcakes to soldiers during a live fire artillery exercise.

She appealed her convictions and sentence.

The Court Martial Appeal Court dismissed the appeal.

The court found no breach of section 7 of the Charter regarding allegedly lost cupcake wrappers, as there was no unacceptable negligence or prejudice.

The court also held that the military judge did not misapprehend the circumstantial evidence and that the guilty verdicts were reasonable.

Finally, the court upheld the sentence of 30 days' imprisonment and dismissal from service, emphasizing the extreme danger the appellant's actions posed to the 150 personnel involved in the exercise and the need for general deterrence and denunciation.

The applicant, a military sergeant convicted of sexual assault, applied for a stay of execution of his 18-month sentence pending his application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada.

The applicant argued that his appeal raised a serious constitutional question regarding the military justice system.

The Court Martial Appeal Court dismissed the motion.

While acknowledging a serious question to be tried and irreparable harm, the Court found that the balance of convenience did not favour a stay.

Given the seriousness of the offence, the passage of ten years since the incident, and the fact that the Court had already ruled on the constitutional issue multiple times, public confidence in the administration of justice required the sentence to be executed in a timely manner.

The Crown appealed the acquittal of a military corporal charged with disgraceful conduct and ill-treating a subordinate.

The charges arose from allegations of inappropriate physical contact in a busy military galley.

The military judge found the complainant generally credible but acquitted the accused, citing a lack of contextual evidence regarding the workplace environment and shift schedules that left her with a reasonable doubt.

On appeal, the Crown argued the military judge erred in law by implicitly requiring corroboration of the complainant's testimony.

The Court Martial Appeal Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the military judge did not require corroboration but appropriately acquitted based on a lack of evidence and concerns about the reliability of the testimony in context.

The appellant, a military reservist, was convicted at a General Court Martial of stealing and conduct to the prejudice of good order and discipline after unauthorized ammunition was found in his barracks nightstand.

He appealed, arguing that his statements to military police should have been excluded due to Charter breaches, that evidence of the ammunition's discovery should have been excluded under section 24(2), and that the military judge erred by not giving a W.(D.) instruction regarding his exculpatory statements.

The Court Martial Appeal Court dismissed the appeal, finding the appellant was not detained during questioning, the initial discovery by non-state actors was admissible independent of the subsequent unlawful police seizure, and the jury instructions were adequate.

The appellant, a Sergeant in the Canadian Armed Forces, appealed his court martial conviction for sexual assault.

He argued that the military judge failed to properly apply the W.(D.) framework for assessing credibility, made palpable and overriding errors of fact, and that the military status of the judge violated his right to an independent and impartial tribunal under s. 11(d) of the Charter.

The Court Martial Appeal Court dismissed the appeal.

The Court found that the military judge correctly applied the substance of the W.(D.) test by assessing the appellant's evidence in the context of the whole record.

The Court also held that the military judge's factual findings were reasonable, and any minor misapprehension of evidence was harmless and curable under the proviso in s. 686(1)(b)(iii) of the Criminal Code.

Finally, the Court reaffirmed its prior jurisprudence that the military justice system and the status of military judges do not violate s. 11(d) of the Charter.

The Crown appealed a stay of proceedings ordered by a military judge.

The military judge had stayed the proceedings on the basis that the subjugation of military judges to the Code of Service Discipline violated the accused's right to an independent and impartial tribunal under section 11(d) of the Charter.

The Court Martial Appeal Court of Canada allowed the appeal, lifted the stay, and ordered the trial to proceed, relying on its recent decisions in Edwards and Proulx which held that the military justice structure does not violate section 11(d).

The Crown appealed a military judge's order staying proceedings against the respondent.

The military judge had ruled that the subjugation of military judges to the Code of Service Discipline violated the respondent's right to an independent and impartial tribunal under section 11(d) of the Charter.

Relying on its recent decisions in related appeals, the Court Martial Appeal Court of Canada found no Charter violation, allowed the appeal, lifted the stay, and ordered the trial to proceed.