The appellant, a member of the Canadian Armed Forces, challenged convictions entered by a General Court Martial on the basis that the military tribunal lacked the independence required by s. 11(d) of the Charter.
The Supreme Court held that s. 11 applies to General Court Martial proceedings and that a separate military justice system is constitutionally permissible, but found that the tribunal's structure at the time lacked sufficient security of tenure, financial security, and institutional independence.
The court further held that the infringement was not justified under s. 1.
The appellant's ss. 7 and 15 arguments failed, and evidence obtained through a constitutionally defective search was nevertheless admissible under s. 24(2).
A new trial was ordered.
