EX-MASTER CORPORAL N.S. EDMUNDS Appellant v. HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN, 2018 CMAC 2

Date: 20180509 Docket: CMAC-590 Citation: 2018 CMAC 2 CORAM: BELL C.J. WATT J.A. SCANLAN J.A. BETWEEN: EX-MASTER CORPORAL N.S. EDMUNDS Appellant and HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN Respondent Hearing held in Vancouver, British Columbia, on March 19, 2018. Judgment delivered at Ottawa, Ontario, on May 9, 2018. REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY: THE COURT Date: 20180509 Docket: CMAC-590 Citation: 2018 CMAC 2 CORAM: BELL C.J. WATT J.A. SCANLAN J.A. BETWEEN: EX-MASTER CORPORAL N.S. EDMUNDS Appellant and HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN Respondent REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY THE COURT [ 1 ] On January 25, 2017, a General Court Martial found the Appellant guilty, pursuant to s.130(1) (

a) of the National Defence Act , R.S.C. 1985, c. N-5 [ NDA ] of four counts of fraud contrary to s. 380 of the Criminal Code , R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46 [ Criminal Code ]. Following conviction, the military judge imposed a sentence of 30 days’ incarceration. The military judge ordered the Appellant’s release pending the hearing of the within appeal. [ 2 ] The Appellant contends the convictions are null and void given that the charge-layer did not have reasonable grounds to believe the offences had been committed at the time he (the charge-layer) signed the Record of Disciplinary Proceedings [RDP].

The RDP is the military law equivalent of an information in the criminal law context. The Respondent admits the charge-layer did not have the requisite reasonable belief, and concedes that the appeal should be allowed and the convictions quashed. We agree. [ 3 ] Although the NDA contains no provision identical to s. 504 of the Criminal Code , which requires that the informant possess

reasonable and probable grounds to believe an accused has committed an offence, a similar requirement exists by application of theQueen’s Regulations and Orders for the Canadian Armed Forces (QR&

O) s. 107.02, and the Note attached thereto.

Those provisionsread as follows: 107.02 – AUTHORITY TO LAYCHARGES 107.02 – POUVOIR DEPORTER DESACCUSATIONS The following persons may laycharges under the Code of ServiceDiscipline: Les personnes suivantes peuventporter des accusations sous lerégime du code de disciplinemilitaire : a. a commanding officer; a. un commandant; b. an officer or non-commissioned member authorizedby a commanding officer to laycharges; and b. un officier ou militaire durang autorisé par un commandantà porter des accusations; c. a member of the militarypolice assigned to investigativeduties with the Canadian ForcesNational Investigation Service. c. un policier militaire à qui on aassigné une fonction d’enquêteurau sein du Service nationald’enquêtes des Forcescanadiennes.

NOTE NOTE There must be an actual belief onthe part of the person laying acharge that the accused hascommitted the alleged offence andthat belief must be reasonable. A“reasonable belief” is a beliefwhich would lead any ordinaryprudent and cautious person to theconclusion that the accused isprobably guilty of the offencealleged.

La personne qui porte uneaccusation doit croire que l’accuséa commis l’infraction en questionet la croyance sur laquelle elles’appuie doit être raisonnable.L’expression «croyanceraisonnable» fait référence à lacroyance qui amènerait unepersonne ordinairement prudenteà conclure que l’accusé estprobablement coupable del’infraction reprochée. [4] As in the criminal law system, the requirement that the charge-layer possess reasonable grounds to believe the accused hascommitted the offence charged constitutes a safeguard against the irresponsible laying of charges (R. v. Peavoy, (ONSC), [1974] O.J.

No. 103, (1974) 15 C.C.C. (2d) 97 (Ont. H.C.). See also R. v. Delalla, 2015 BCSC 592, [2015] B.C.J. No. 702[Delalla], at paras 60-63; R. v. Edge, 2004 ABPC 55, 21 CR (6th) 361 at paras 23-25). Failure to meet this reasonably grounded beliefrequirement is fatal to an RDP and results in a loss of jurisdiction (R. v. Awad, 2015 NSCA 10, [2015] N.S.J. No. 34; Delalla; R. v.Pilcher, [1981] M.J. No. 552, (1981) (MB PC), 58 C.C.C. (2d) 435 (Man. Prov. Ct.)). Where this loss of jurisdictionarises, the RDP cannot be cured by the subsequent referral of charges by the Director of Military Prosecutions (R. v.

Laity, 2007 CM3011, at para. 30). [5] In his written submissions, the Appellant also sought a stay of proceedings based upon alleged Crown misconduct and a purportedviolation of his right to be tried within a reasonable time. In support of the latter claim, he relied upon s. 11(

b) of the Canadian Charterof Rights and Freedoms,

Part I of the Constitution Act, 1982, being

Schedule B to the Canada Act, 1982 (UK), 1982, c. 11 [Charter] andthe decision in R. v. Jordan, 2016 SCC 27, [2016] 1 S.C.R. 631. At the outset of the oral hearing on this appeal, the Appellantacknowledged that if the trial proceedings constituted a nullity, there exists no properly instituted proceeding for which a stay could begranted on either basis advanced. We agree. The proceedings and convictions are rendered a nullity by the charge-layer’s lack ofreasonably grounded belief. We allow the appeal and quash the convictions.

In the circumstances, we have no jurisdiction to grant theAppellant’s request for a stay of proceedings. “B. Richard Bell” Chief Justice “David Watt” J.A. “J. Edward Scanlan” J.A. COURT MARTIAL APPEAL COURT OF CANADA

COURT MARTIAL APPEAL COURT OF CANADA NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: CMAC-590 STYLE OF CAUSE: D77 987 837 EX-MASTER CORPORAL N.S. EDMUNDS v. HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN PLACE OF HEARING: Vancouver, British Columbia DATE OF HEARING: March 19, 2018 REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY: BELL, C.J., WATT, SCANLAN JJ.A. REASONS FROM THE BENCH BY: THE COURT DATED: MAY 9, 2018 APPEARANCES : Lieutenant-Colonel Denis Bernsten FOR THE APPELLANT Major Dylan Kerr FOR THE RESPONDENT SOLICITORS OF RECORD : Defense Counsel Services Sidney, British Columbia For The AppELLANT Canadian Military Prosecution Service Ottawa, Ontario For The Respondent