Karl Joseph Jean-Guy Jacques Lacharité

The applicant, a Sergeant convicted of sexual assault and sentenced to nine months of imprisonment and a reduction in rank, sought a stay of the execution of his sentence pending his application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada.

The Crown consented to the stay subject to conditions.

The Court Martial Appeal Court of Canada applied the RJR-MacDonald and Oland tests, finding that the appeal raised a serious issue regarding the independence and impartiality of military judges, that the applicant would suffer irreparable harm, and that the balance of convenience favoured granting the stay.

The Court granted the stay of execution of sentence subject to conditions.

The appellant, a Sergeant in the Canadian Armed Forces, appealed his conviction for sexual assault by a Military Judge.

The appellant raised four grounds of appeal: refusal to grant a meaningful adjournment following late disclosure, refusal to grant an adjournment prior to sentencing to investigate false memory syndrome, restricting cross-examination of the complainant regarding her financial situation and potential class action claim, and lack of judicial independence of the Military Judge.

The Court Martial Appeal Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the Military Judge's discretionary decisions regarding adjournments and cross-examination, and rejecting the judicial independence argument based on established jurisprudence.

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 Crown appealed a Military Judge's acquittal of the respondent on a charge of sexual assault.

The trial judge found that while the complainant lacked capacity to consent due to intoxication, the respondent had an honest but mistaken belief in consent.

The Crown argued the judge's reasons were contradictory and engaged the recklessness provision in s. 273.2 of the Criminal Code.

The Court Martial Appeal Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Crown misconstrued the judge's recitation of the prosecution's burden as a factual finding.

The trial judge's factual findings supporting the defence were upheld.

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.