CMAC 2026

The applicant, Master Corporal Houde, was convicted of sexual assault and sentenced to 42 months' imprisonment following a Standing Court Martial.

After his conviction was affirmed on appeal, he sought a stay of execution of his sentence pending an application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada.

The Court found it had jurisdiction to hear the motion under section 65.1(2) of the Supreme Court Act even though the leave application had not yet been filed.

Applying the RJR-Macdonald test, the Court found there was a serious issue and potential irreparable harm, but concluded the balance of convenience favoured the respondent.

Given the serious nature of the offences, the factual findings regarding the respect for the applicant's language rights at trial, and the need for public confidence in the timely enforcement of judgments, the motion for a stay was dismissed.

The appellant, a Master Corporal, appealed his sexual assault convictions and 42-month sentence imposed by a Standing Court Martial.

He raised several grounds: breach of language rights during a bilingual trial, unreasonable delay under Jordan following an adjournment caused by his inappropriate comment to the prosecutor, errors in finding lack of consent, and errors in applying the private records regime to exclude text messages he claimed showed a motive to fabricate.

The Court Martial Appeal Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant's language rights were met through simultaneous interpretation, the trial delay was properly attributed to the defence, the judge correctly assessed consent, and the judge appropriately excluded text messages that relied on stereotypical reasoning to suggest a motive to fabricate.

The prosecution appealed an order staying six fraud and fraud-related charges against the respondent due to unreasonable delay under section 11(b) of the Charter.

The 18-month presumptive ceiling under Jordan was exceeded after the trial was adjourned to accommodate the respondent's Charter challenge, but the Military Judge attributed the ultimate delay to the unavailability of prosecution counsel on earlier dates.

The Court Martial Appeal Court found no reviewable error in the Military Judge's conclusion that the delay was attributable to the prosecution and dismissed the appeal.

The respondent's cross-appeal regarding an earlier stay application was dismissed for mootness.

The respondent pleaded guilty before a court martial to dangerous driving under the Criminal Code, charged as a military offence.

At sentencing, the prosecution and defence jointly recommended a driving prohibition under the Criminal Code.

The military judge held he lacked jurisdiction to impose a driving prohibition.

The prosecution appealed.

The Court Martial Appeal Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the National Defence Act establishes a distinct sentencing regime for military offences, and courts martial do not possess jurisdiction to impose discretionary penalties like driving prohibitions that are set out only in the Criminal Code.

The appellant brought a motion for an extension of time to file a late notice of appeal to resurrect an appeal he had abandoned in 2019.

In 2019, the appellant was found guilty of sexual assault by a court martial and ordered to be registered on the sex offender registry.

Following the Supreme Court of Canada decision in R. v. Ndhlovu finding mandatory registration unconstitutional, and the subsequent CMAC decision in R. v. O'Dell applying Ndhlovu to the National Defence Act, the appellant sought to challenge his inclusion.

The Court Martial Appeal Court granted the motion, finding the change in the law was a fundamental event striking at the root of the decision to abandon the appeal, the appeal had a reasonable prospect of success, and there was no prejudice to the respondent.