Patrice Germain

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 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 appellant, a corporal in the military, appealed his conviction for sexual assault and his sentence of 30 days' imprisonment, demotion, and a $5,000 fine.

The conviction appeal argued the military judge's credibility findings were illogical.

The Court Martial Appeal Court dismissed the conviction appeal, finding no error in the credibility assessment.

On the sentence appeal, the appellant and the Crown jointly argued the military judge erred by imposing imprisonment instead of the jointly submitted 30 days' detention without giving the parties notice and an opportunity to make further submissions.

The Court applied the framework from Nahanee, holding that a sentencing judge must notify parties before exceeding a sentencing submission, even if the offender was convicted after a trial rather than pleading guilty.

The sentence appeal was allowed, and the sentence was varied to 30 days' detention, with all other orders remaining.

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 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.

The Crown appealed the acquittal of the respondent, who had been charged with sexual assault.

The Crown argued the military judge erred in concluding that the complainant, who was highly intoxicated, was capable of consenting to the sexual activity.

The majority of the Court Martial Appeal Court dismissed the appeal, finding no legal error in the military judge's assessment of the evidence and his conclusion that the Crown failed to prove lack of capacity or lack of consent beyond a reasonable doubt.

The dissenting judge would have allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial, finding the military judge failed to conduct a proper cumulative assessment of the evidence.

The Crown appealed a sentence imposed by a military judge on the respondent, who pleaded guilty to common assault against his girlfriend and an offence under the Code of Service Discipline for fighting with a corporal.

The military judge imposed a severe reprimand and a $3,000 fine, rejecting the Crown's request for a 90-day term of imprisonment.

The Court Martial Appeal Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the military judge properly considered the principles of sentencing, including denunciation and deterrence, and correctly applied both military and civilian case law.

The sentence was not demonstrably unfit and was free from any error in principle.

A member of the Canadian Armed Forces posted abroad was convicted of voyeurism, possession of a device for surreptitious interception of private communications, sexual assault, and disgraceful conduct, following a search of his residence and electronic devices by Canadian military investigators and local police operating under a Virginia warrant.

The appellant challenged the search as violating s. 8 of the Charter, arguing the search was unauthorized and unreasonably expanded to cover unanticipated offences.

The majority held that the search was authorized by law under the Virginia warrant, which expressly covered electronic devices; that the warrant met the Vu standard for specific prior authorization of digital searches; and that evidence of sexual assault discovered inadvertently during triage of electronic devices was admissible under the plain view doctrine.

The Court declined to reconsider the extraterritorial application of the Charter as established in R. v. Hape.

The appeal was dismissed and convictions affirmed.

The appellant, a member of the Canadian Armed Forces, appealed his court martial convictions for sexual assault.

At trial, the appellant sought to introduce evidence of the complainant's prior sexual activity with a third party to establish a motive to fabricate the allegations.

The Military Judge dismissed the application at Stage One under section 278.93 of the Criminal Code, finding the evidence irrelevant and based on prohibited twin myths, and refused to hold a Stage Two admissibility hearing.

The Court Martial Appeal Court allowed the appeal, holding that the proposed evidence was logically relevant to assessing credibility and a potential motive to fabricate, without engaging the prohibited stereotypes.

The Court declined to apply the curative proviso, as the error was not harmless and the evidence of guilt was not overwhelming.

A new trial was ordered.

The appellant, a Bombardier in the Canadian Armed Forces, was convicted of disgraceful conduct and administering a noxious thing after distributing cannabis-laced cupcakes to soldiers during a live fire artillery exercise.

She appealed her convictions and sentence.

The Court Martial Appeal Court dismissed the appeal.

The court found no breach of section 7 of the Charter regarding allegedly lost cupcake wrappers, as there was no unacceptable negligence or prejudice.

The court also held that the military judge did not misapprehend the circumstantial evidence and that the guilty verdicts were reasonable.

Finally, the court upheld the sentence of 30 days' imprisonment and dismissal from service, emphasizing the extreme danger the appellant's actions posed to the 150 personnel involved in the exercise and the need for general deterrence and denunciation.

The applicant, a military sergeant convicted of sexual assault, applied for a stay of execution of his 18-month sentence pending his application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada.

The applicant argued that his appeal raised a serious constitutional question regarding the military justice system.

The Court Martial Appeal Court dismissed the motion.

While acknowledging a serious question to be tried and irreparable harm, the Court found that the balance of convenience did not favour a stay.

Given the seriousness of the offence, the passage of ten years since the incident, and the fact that the Court had already ruled on the constitutional issue multiple times, public confidence in the administration of justice required the sentence to be executed in a timely manner.

The Crown appealed the acquittal of a military corporal charged with disgraceful conduct and ill-treating a subordinate.

The charges arose from allegations of inappropriate physical contact in a busy military galley.

The military judge found the complainant generally credible but acquitted the accused, citing a lack of contextual evidence regarding the workplace environment and shift schedules that left her with a reasonable doubt.

On appeal, the Crown argued the military judge erred in law by implicitly requiring corroboration of the complainant's testimony.

The Court Martial Appeal Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the military judge did not require corroboration but appropriately acquitted based on a lack of evidence and concerns about the reliability of the testimony in context.

The appellant, a military reservist, was convicted at a General Court Martial of stealing and conduct to the prejudice of good order and discipline after unauthorized ammunition was found in his barracks nightstand.

He appealed, arguing that his statements to military police should have been excluded due to Charter breaches, that evidence of the ammunition's discovery should have been excluded under section 24(2), and that the military judge erred by not giving a W.(D.) instruction regarding his exculpatory statements.

The Court Martial Appeal Court dismissed the appeal, finding the appellant was not detained during questioning, the initial discovery by non-state actors was admissible independent of the subsequent unlawful police seizure, and the jury instructions were adequate.

The appellant, a Sergeant in the Canadian Armed Forces, appealed his court martial conviction for sexual assault.

He argued that the military judge failed to properly apply the W.(D.) framework for assessing credibility, made palpable and overriding errors of fact, and that the military status of the judge violated his right to an independent and impartial tribunal under s. 11(d) of the Charter.

The Court Martial Appeal Court dismissed the appeal.

The Court found that the military judge correctly applied the substance of the W.(D.) test by assessing the appellant's evidence in the context of the whole record.

The Court also held that the military judge's factual findings were reasonable, and any minor misapprehension of evidence was harmless and curable under the proviso in s. 686(1)(b)(iii) of the Criminal Code.

Finally, the Court reaffirmed its prior jurisprudence that the military justice system and the status of military judges do not violate s. 11(d) of the Charter.

The Crown appealed a stay of proceedings ordered by a military judge.

The military judge had stayed the proceedings on the basis that the subjugation of military judges to the Code of Service Discipline violated the accused's right to an independent and impartial tribunal under section 11(d) of the Charter.

The Court Martial Appeal Court of Canada allowed the appeal, lifted the stay, and ordered the trial to proceed, relying on its recent decisions in Edwards and Proulx which held that the military justice structure does not violate section 11(d).

The Crown appealed a military judge's order staying proceedings against the respondent.

The military judge had ruled that the subjugation of military judges to the Code of Service Discipline violated the respondent's right to an independent and impartial tribunal under section 11(d) of the Charter.

Relying on its recent decisions in related appeals, the Court Martial Appeal Court of Canada found no Charter violation, allowed the appeal, lifted the stay, and ordered the trial to proceed.

The appellant, a military captain, appealed his convictions and sentence for sexual assault, sexual harassment, and ill treatment of subordinates arising from incidents at a unit Christmas party.

The Court Martial Appeal Court allowed the appeal in part, quashing the convictions for sexual assault and ill treatment of subordinates and ordering a new trial on those charges.

The Court found the trial judge's reasons for those convictions were insufficient and the verdicts unreasonable because the judge failed to resolve significant contradictions in the testimony of three witnesses regarding the incidents.

However, the Court upheld the conviction for sexual harassment, finding it was supported by the evidence, and affirmed the sentence of a reduction in rank.

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 respondent, Corporal Christmas, brought a motion to re-impose a stay of proceedings pending the Supreme Court of Canada's disposition of a leave to appeal application in related matters (Edwards et al.).

The original stay was granted on the basis that the military judge lacked independence, but was lifted after the Court Martial Appeal Court allowed the Crown's appeals in the related matters.

The Court dismissed the motion, holding that an application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada is not intended to freeze the wheels of justice and that it is in the interests of the administration of justice to proceed expeditiously.