Sa Majesté la Reine (appelante) v. Adjudant J.G.A. Gagnon (intimé)

Sa Majesté la Reine (appelante) v. Adjudant J.G.A. Gagnon (intimé) Sa Majesté la Reine (appelante) v. Caporal A.J.R. Thibault (intimé) (CMAC-577; CMAC-581; 2015 CMAC 2; 2015 CACM 2) Indexed As: R. v. Gagnon (J.G.A.) Court Martial Appeal Court Bell, C.J., Deschênes and Cournoyer, JJ.A. December 21, 2015. Summary: Gagnon and Thibault were charged with sexual assault. Court Martial proceedings ensued. Gagnon was acquitted. In Thibault's case the Court Martial found that it had no jurisdiction over the charge of sexual assault because of a lack of sufficient military nexus. The Minister of Defence appealed the two decisions pursuant to s. 230.1 of the National Defence Act (NDA). Gagnon and Thibault applied to have the Minister's appeals quashed and dismissed, arguing that the right to appeal had to be attributed to an independent prosecutor and that it was contrary to s. 7 of the Charter to confer it on the Minister. The Court Martial Appeal Court allowed the appeals. Section 7 of the Charter protected the constitutional right of an accused to an independent prosecutor. The Minister of Defence could not reasonably be perceived as an independent prosecutor. Section 230.1 of the NDA, which conferred on the Minister the right to appeal, thus did not satisfy the constitutional requirement of prosecutorial independence. It was declared to be of no force and effect to the extent that its holder was not independent. The section could not be saved under s. 1 of the Charter. The court suspended the declaration of invalidity of s. 230.1 for six months. The court, however, refused to quash the appeals, but rather adjourned the appeals until after the suspension period for the declaration of invalidity of s. 230.1. Presumably, Parliament would by that time have passed the amendments deemed necessary to the NDA, thus granting Gagnon and Thibault the remedy sought (i.e., an independent prosecutor for the conduct of the appeal proceedings). Armed Forces - Topic 8825 Offences - Appeals - Prosecutorial independence - The Court Martial Appeal Court held that prosecutorial independence was a principle of fundamental justice under s. 7 of the Charter - That principle applied to the Canadian military justice system - See paragraphs 90 to 157. Armed Forces - Topic 8825 Offences - Appeals - Prosecutorial independence - Pursuant to s. 230.1 of the National Defence Act, the Minister of National Defence had the right to appeal to the Court Martial Appeal Court from a court martial in respect of certain enumerated matters - At issue was whether the principle of prosecutorial independence required the right of appeal to be exercised by an independent prosecutor - The Court Martial Appeal Court held that s. 7 of the Charter protected the constitutional right of an accused to an independent prosecutor - The Minister of Defence could not reasonably be perceived as an independent prosecutor -

Section 230.1 thus did not satisfy the constitutional requirement of prosecutorial independence - The court declared s. 230.1 to be of no force and effect to the extent that its holder was not independent - Section 230.1 was not saved by s. 1 of the Charter - The declaration of invalidity was suspended for six months - See paragraphs 90 to 284. Civil Rights - Topic 1410.5 Security of the person - Law enforcement - Prosecutorial discretion - [See both Armed Forces - Topic 8825]. Civil Rights - Topic 8348 Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Application - Exceptions - Reasonable limits prescribed by law (Charter, s. 1) - [See second Armed Forces - Topic 8825]. Civil Rights - Topic 8380.2 Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Denial of rights - Remedies - Declaration of statute invalidity - [See second Armed Forces - Topic 8825]. Civil Rights - Topic 8547 Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Interpretation - Particular words and phrases - Principles of fundamental justice - [See first Armed Forces - Topic 8825]. Criminal Law - Topic 26 General principles - Prosecution of crime - Prosecutorial discretion - [See both Armed Forces - Topic 8825]. Cases Noticed: R. v. MacKay, [1980] 2 S.C.R. 370; 33 N.R. 1, refd to. [paras. 3, 147, footnote 80]. R. v. Généreux, [1992] 1 S.C.R. 259; 133 N.R. 241, refd to. [paras. 4, 47, footnote 3]. R. v. Moriarity (2015), 477 N.R. 356; 2015 SCC 55, refd to. [paras. 6, 89, footnote 33]. R. v. Regan (G.A.), [2002] 1 S.C.R. 297; 282 N.R. 1; 201 N.S.R.(2d) 63; 629 A.P.R. 63; 2002 SCC 12, refd to. [paras. 11, 97, footnote 52]. Krieger et al. v. Law Society of Alberta, [2002] 3 S.C.R. 372; 293 N.R. 201; 312 A.R. 275; 281 W.A.C. 275; 2002 SCC 65, refd to. [paras. 11, 92, footnote 39]. R. v. Russel (W.I.), [2013] 3 S.C.R. 3; 447 N.R. 111; 308 O.A.C. 347; 2013 SCC 43, refd to. [paras. 13, 109, footnote 59]. Ontario v. Criminal Lawyers' Association of Ontario - see R. v. Russel (W.I.). Schaeffer et al. v. Wood et al., [2013] 3 S.C.R. 1053; 452 N.R. 286; 312 O.A.C. 1; 2013 SCC 71, refd to. [para. 52, footnote 6]. R. v. Evans (C.R.) et al., [1996] 1 S.C.R. 8; 191 N.R. 327; 69 B.C.A.C. 81; 113 W.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 58, footnote 13]. R. v. Graveline (R.), [2006] 1 S.C.R. 609; 347 N.R. 268; 2006 SCC 16, refd to. [para. 58, footnote 13]. R. v. Malmo-Levine (D.) et al., [2003] 3 S.C.R. 571; 314 N.R. 1; 191 B.C.A.C. 1; 314 W.A.C. 1; 2003 SCC 74, refd to. [para. 89, footnote 33]. R. v. D.B., [2008] 2 S.C.R. 3; 374 N.R. 221; 237 O.A.C. 110; 2008 SCC 25, refd to. [para.

90, footnote 34]. Federation of Law Societies of Canada v. Canada (Attorney General), [2015] 1 S.C.R. 401; 467 N.R. 243; 365 B.C.A.C. 3; 627 W.A.C. 3; 2015 SCC 7, refd to. [para. 91, footnote 35]. Nelles v. Ontario et al., [1989] 2 S.C.R. 170; 98 N.R. 321; 35 O.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 92, footnote 36]. R. v. V.T., [1992] 1 S.C.R. 749; 134 N.R. 289; 7 B.C.A.C. 81; 15 W.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 92, footnote 37]. R. v. Cook (D.W.), [1997] 1 S.C.R. 1113; 210 N.R. 197; 188 N.B.R.(2d) 161; 480 A.P.R. 161, refd to. [para. 92, footnote 38]. Kvello et al. v. Miazga et al., [2009] 3 S.C.R. 339; 395 N.R. 115; 337 Sask.R. 260; 464 W.A.C. 260; 2009 SCC 51, refd to. [para. 92, footnote 40]. R. v. Nixon (O.), [2011] 2 S.C.R. 566; 417 N.R. 274; 502 A.R. 18; 517 W.A.C. 18; 2011 SCC 34, refd to. [para. 92, footnote 41]. R. v. Anderson (F.), [2014] 2 S.C.R. 167; 458 N.R. 1; 350 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 289; 1088 A.P.R. 289; 2014 SCC 41, refd to. [para. 92, footnote 42]. Hinse v. Canada (Attorney General) (2015), 472 N.R. 200; 2015 SCC 35, refd to. [para. 92, footnote 43]. Henry v. British Columbia (Attorney General) et al., [2015] 2 S.C.R. 214; 470 N.R. 200; 369 B.C.A.C. 47; 634 W.A.C. 47; 2015 SCC 24, refd to. [para. 92, footnote 44]. R. v. Beare; R. v. Higgins, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 387; 88 N.R. 205; 71 Sask.R. 1, refd to. [para. 97, footnote 47]. Guindon v. Minister of National Revenue (2015), 473 N.R. 120; 2015 SCC 41, refd to. [para. 108, footnote 57]. R. v. Auclair (G.) et al., [2014] N.R. Uned. 3; [2014] 1 S.C.R. 83; 2014 SCC 6, refd to. [para. 109, footnote 58]. R. v. Nur (H.) (2015), 469 N.R. 1; 332 O.A.C. 208; 2015 SCC 15, refd to. [para. 109, footnote 59]. R. v. Gill (R.), (2012), 295 O.A.C. 345; 96 C.R.(6th) 172; 2012 ONCA 607, refd to. [para. 119, footnote 60]. Constitutional Amendment References 1981 (Man., Nfld., Que.), [1981] 1 S.C.R. 753; 39 N.R. 1; 11 Man.R.(2d) 1; 34 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 1; 95 A.P.R. 1, refd to. [para. 125, footnote 63]. Phillips et al. v. Richard, J., [1995] 2 S.C.R. 97; 180 N.R. 1; 141 N.S.R.(2d) 1; 403 A.P.R. 1, refd to. [para. 144, footnote 79]. Phillips v. Nova Scotia (Commission of Inquiry into the Westray Mine Tragedy) - see Phillips et al. v. Richard. J. R. v. McHale (G.W.) (2010), 261 O.A.C. 354; 256 C.C.C.(3d) 26; 2010 ONCA 361, leave to appeal refused [2010] 3 S.C.R. vi; 413 N.R. 393; 279 O.A.C. 108, refd to. [para. 144, footnote 79]. PHS Community Services Society et al. v. Canada (Attorney General), [2011] 3 S.C.R. 134; 421 N.R. 1; 310 B.C.A.C. 1; 526 W.A.C. 1; 2011 SCC 44, refd to. [para. 148, footnote 81]. R. v. Larouche (R.) (2014), 460 N.R. 248; 2014 CMAC 6, refd to. [para. 163, footnote 92]. R. v. Tupper, 2009 CMAC 5 (Can. Ct. Martial App. Ct.), refd to. [para. 165, footnote 94].

Quebec North Shore & Labrador Railway Co. v. Canada (Minister of Labour), [1996] F.C.J. No. 545 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 174, footnote 99]. R. v. Wehmeier, 2014 CMAC 5, leave to appeal refused [2014] 3 S.C.R. x, refd to. [para. 178, footnote 101]. R. v. Bain, [1992] 1 S.C.R. 91; 133 N.R. 1; 51 O.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 180, footnote 102]. R. v. Appulonappa (F.A.) et al. (2015), 379 B.C.A.C. 3; 654 W.A.C. 3; 2015 SCC 59, refd to. [para. 183, footnote 105]. Bedford et al. v. Canada (Attorney General), [2013] 3 S.C.R. 1101; 452 N.R. 1; 312 O.A.C. 53; 2013 SCC 72, refd to. [para. 196, footnote 110]. Hutterian Brethren of Wilson Colony et al. v. Alberta, [2009] 2 S.C.R. 567; 390 N.R. 202; 460 A.R. 1; 462 W.A.C. 1; 2009 SCC 37, refd to. [para. 198, footnote 111]. R. v. Morgentaler (1985), 11 O.A.C. 81; 22 C.C.C.(3d) 353 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 210, footnote 113]. R. v. Morgentaler, Smoling and Scott, [1988] 1 S.C.R. 30; 82 N.R. 1; 26 O.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 212, footnote 114]. R. v. Oakes, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 103; 65 N.R. 87; 14 O.A.C. 335, refd to. [para. 214, footnote 115]. Sauvé v. Canada (Chief Electoral Officer) et al., [2002] 3 S.C.R. 519; 294 N.R. 1; 2002 SCC 68, refd to. [para. 214, footnote 115]. R. v. Bryan (P.C.) et al., [2007] 1 S.C.R. 527; 359 N.R. 1; 237 B.C.A.C. 33; 392 W.A.C. 33; 2007 SCC 12, refd to. [para. 214, footnote 115]. Vriend et al. v. Alberta, [1998] 1 S.C.R. 493; 224 N.R. 1; 212 A.R. 237; 168 W.A.C. 237, refd to. [para. 221, footnote 116]. R. v. Mian (M.H.), [2014] 2 S.C.R. 689; 462 N.R. 1; 580 A.R. 1; 620 W.A.C. 1; 2014 SCC 54, refd to. [para. 228, footnote 121]. R. v. Tshiamala (2011), 299 C.C.C.(3d) 345; 2011 QCCA 439, refd to. [para. 228, footnote 122]. Schachter v. Canada et al., [1992] 2 S.C.R. 679; 139 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 230, footnote 123]. R. v. Powley (S.) et al., [2003] 2 S.C.R. 207; 308 N.R. 201; 177 O.A.C. 201; 2003 SCC 43, refd to. [para. 233, footnote 124]. R. v. Guignard (R.), [2002] 1 S.C.R. 472; 282 N.R. 365; 2002 SCC 14, refd to. [para. 234, footnote 125]. Eurig Estate v. Ontario Court (General Division), Registrar, [1998] 2 S.C.R. 565; 231 N.R. 55; 114 O.A.C. 55, refd to. [para. 234, footnote 126]. R. v. Mills (B.J.), [1999] 3 S.C.R. 668; 248 N.R. 101; 244 A.R. 201; 209 W.A.C. 201, refd to. [para. 244, footnote 131]. Vilardell v. Dunham, [2014] 3 S.C.R. 31; 463 N.R. 336; 361 B.C.A.C. 1; 619 W.A.C. 1; 2014 SCC 59, refd to. [para. 245, footnote 132]. Trial Lawyers Association of British Columbia v. British Columbia (Attorney General) - see Vilardell v. Dunham. Reference Re Remuneration of Judges of the Provincial Court (P.E.I.), [1998] 1 S.C.R. 3; 223 N.R. 21; 212 A.R. 161; 168 W.A.C. 161; 126 Man.R.(2d) 96; 167 W.A.C. 196; 161 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 124; 497 A.P.R. 124, refd to. [para. 250, footnote 134].

R. v. Demers (R.), [2004] 2 S.C.R. 489; 323 N.R. 201; 2004 SCC 46, refd to. [para. 251, footnote 136]. R. v. Ferguson (M.E.), [2008] 1 S.C.R. 96; 371 N.R. 231; 425 A.R. 79; 418 W.A.C. 79; 2008 SCC 6, refd to. [para. 257, footnote 138]. Ward v. Vancouver (City) et al., [2010] 2 S.C.R. 28; 404 N.R. 1; 290 B.C.A.C. 222; 491 W.A.C. 222; 2010 SCC 27, refd to. [para. 258, footnote 139]. R. v. Irwin (R.) (1998), 107 O.A.C. 102; 123 C.C.C.(3d) 316 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 270, footnote 143]. R. v. Babos (A.), [2014] 1 S.C.R. 309; 454 N.R. 86; 2014 SCC 16, refd to. [para. 271, footnote 144]. R. v. Jewitt, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 128; 61 N.R. 159, refd to. [para. 274, footnote 146]. Carter et al. v. Canada (Attorney General) et al., [2015] 1 S.C.R. 331; 468 N.R. 1; 366 B.C.A.C. 1; 629 W.A.C. 1; 2015 SCC 5, refd to. [para. 276, footnote 148]. R. v. Bjelland (J.C.), [2009] 2 S.C.R. 651; 391 N.R. 202; 460 A.R. 230; 462 W.A.C. 230; 2009 SCC 38, refd to. [para. 278, footnote 151]. Statutes Noticed: National Defence Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. N-5, sect. 165.11 [para. 49]; sect. 230.1 [para. 48]; sect. 245(2) [para. 50]. Counsel: Major Prem Rawal and Lieutenant-Colonel David Antonyshyn, for the appellant, Her Majesty the Queen; Lieutenant-Commander Mark Létourneau and Lieutenant-Colonel Jean-Bruno Cloutier, for the respondents, Warrant Officer J.G.A. Gagnon and Corporal A.J.R. Thibault. Solicitors of Record: Major Anne Litowski, Service Canadien des Poursuites Militaires, Ottawa, Ontario, for the appellant, Her Majesty the Queen; Lieutenant-Commander Mark Létourneau and Lieutenant-Colonel Jean-Bruno Cloutier, Gatineau, Quebec, for the respondents, Warrant Officer J.G.A. Gagnon and Corporal A.J.R. Thibault. These appeals were heard in Ottawa, Ontario, on June 12, 2015, before Bell, C.J., Deschênes and Cournoyer, JJ.A., of the Court Martial Appeal Court of Canada. The decision of the court was delivered on December 21, 2105, including the following opinions: Bell, C.J. (partially concurring reasons) - see paragraphs 1 to 20; Cournoyer, J.A. (Deschêne, J.A., concurring) - see paragraphs 21 to 284. Editor: Elizabeth M.A. Turgeon Appeals allowed.

Civil Rights - Topic 1410.5 Security of the person - Law enforcement - Prosecutorial discretion - The Court Martial Appeal Court held that prosecutorial independence was a principle of fundamental justice under s. 7 of the Charter - That principle applied to the Canadian military justice system - See paragraphs 90 to 157. Civil Rights - Topic 1410.5 Security of the person - Law enforcement - Prosecutorial discretion - Pursuant to s. 230.1 of the National Defence Act, the Minister of National Defence had the right to appeal to the Court Martial Appeal Court from a court martial in respect of certain enumerated matters - At issue was whether the principle of prosecutorial independence required the right of appeal to be exercised by an independent prosecutor - The Court Martial Appeal Court held that s. 7 of the Charter protected the constitutional right of an accused to an independent prosecutor - The Minister of Defence could not reasonably be perceived as an independent prosecutor - Section 230.1 thus did not satisfy the constitutional requirement of prosecutorial independence - The court declared s. 230.1 to be of no force and effect to the extent that its holder was not independent - Section 230.1 was not saved by s. 1 of the Charter - The declaration of invalidity was suspended for six months - See paragraphs 90 to 284. Civil Rights - Topic 8348 Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Application - Exceptions - Reasonable limits prescribed by law (Charter, s. 1) - Pursuant to s. 230.1 of the National Defence Act, the Minister of National Defence had the right to appeal to the Court Martial Appeal Court from a court martial in respect of certain enumerated matters - At issue was whether the principle of prosecutorial independence required the right of appeal to be exercised by an independent prosecutor - The Court Martial Appeal Court held that s. 7 of the Charter protected the constitutional right of an accused to an independent prosecutor - The Minister of Defence could not reasonably be perceived as an independent prosecutor - Section 230.1 thus did not satisfy the constitutional requirement of prosecutorial independence - The court declared s. 230.1 to be of no force and effect to the extent that its holder was not independent - Section 230.1 was not saved by s. 1 of the Charter - The declaration of invalidity was suspended for six months - See paragraphs 90 to 284. Civil Rights - Topic 8380.2 Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Denial of rights - Remedies - Declaration of statute invalidity - Pursuant to s. 230.1 of the National Defence Act, the Minister of National Defence had the right to appeal to the Court Martial Appeal Court from a court martial in respect of certain enumerated matters - At issue was whether the principle of prosecutorial independence required the right of appeal to be exercised by an independent prosecutor - The Court Martial Appeal Court held that s. 7 of the Charter protected the constitutional right of an accused to an independent prosecutor - The Minister of Defence could not reasonably be perceived as an independent prosecutor - Section 230.1 thus did not satisfy the constitutional requirement of prosecutorial independence - The court declared s. 230.1 to be of no force and effect to the extent that its holder was not independent - Section 230.1 was not saved by s. 1 of the Charter - The declaration of invalidity was suspended for six months - See

paragraphs 90 to 284. Civil Rights - Topic 8547 Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Interpretation - Particular words and phrases - Principles of fundamental justice - The Court Martial Appeal Court held that prosecutorial independence was a principle of fundamental justice under s. 7 of the Charter - That principle applied to the Canadian military justice system - See paragraphs 90 to 157. Criminal Law - Topic 26 General principles - Prosecution of crime - Prosecutorial discretion - The Court Martial Appeal Court held that prosecutorial independence was a principle of fundamental justice under s. 7 of the Charter - That principle applied to the Canadian military justice system - See paragraphs 90 to 157. Criminal Law - Topic 26 General principles - Prosecution of crime - Prosecutorial discretion - Pursuant to s. 230.1 of the National Defence Act, the Minister of National Defence had the right to appeal to the Court Martial Appeal Court from a court martial in respect of certain enumerated matters - At issue was whether the principle of prosecutorial independence required the right of appeal to be exercised by an independent prosecutor - The Court Martial Appeal Court held that s. 7 of the Charter protected the constitutional right of an accused to an independent prosecutor - The Minister of Defence could not reasonably be perceived as an independent prosecutor - Section 230.1 thus did not satisfy the constitutional requirement of prosecutorial independence - The court declared s. 230.1 to be of no force and effect to the extent that its holder was not independent - Section 230.1 was not saved by s. 1 of the Charter - The declaration of invalidity was suspended for six months - See paragraphs 90 to 284.