3 total
Motion for stay of execution of 42-month sentence pending SCC leave application dismissed.
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.
Court Martial Appeal Court upholds sexual assault conviction, rejecting language rights, delay, and private record challenges.
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.
Application for extra factum pages denied; volume of record alone insufficient to justify extension.
The Appellant applied to file a Memorandum of Fact and Law exceeding the 30-page limit by 15 pages in an appeal before the Court Martial Appeal Court.
The Appellant cited the voluminous record, including 29 appeal books and 13 voir dires, as justification.
The Court dismissed the application, holding that the sheer volume of material is insufficient to justify an extension.
The Appellant failed to provide a draft factum or sufficient details about the grounds of appeal to demonstrate why the arguments could not be presented concisely within the standard limits.
