LCol D. Bernsten

The respondent, Corporal Euler, brought a motion to quash the Crown's appeal on the basis that the appellant had not shown a substantial ground of appeal in its Memorandum of Fact and Law.

The parties presented differing interpretations of the Military Judge's reasons regarding whether corroboration of the complainant's testimony was required.

The Court Martial Appeal Court of Canada dismissed the motion, holding that the power to quash an appeal should be exercised sparingly and that the differing interpretations of the Military Judge's reasons were more appropriately dealt with at a hearing on the merits.

The applicant, a sailor in the Canadian Armed Forces, was arrested for alleged drunkenness and released on conditions by a Custody Review Officer before any charges were laid.

He brought a motion arguing that the imposition of release conditions without charge violated his section 7 Charter rights.

The Court Martial Appeal Court dismissed the motion, holding that the National Defence Act permits a military judge to impose conditions on release even if no charge has yet been laid.

The Court found that while the conditions constituted a deprivation of liberty, they were not imposed contrary to the principles of fundamental justice, and any such deprivation would be saved under section 1 of the Charter given the unique context of the military justice system.