Her Majesty The Queen Applicant v. Corporal R.P. Beaudry, 2019 SCC 2

SUPREME COURT OF CANADA Citation: R. v . Beaudry , 2019 SCC 2, [2019] 1 S.C.R. 95 Appeal Heard: January 14, 2019 Judgment Rendered: January 14, 2019 Docket: 38308 Between: Her Majesty The Queen Applicant and Corporal R.P. Beaudry Respondent Coram: Gascon, Côté, Brown, Rowe and Martin JJ. Reasons for Judgment: (paras. 1 to 3) Gascon J. (Côté, Brown, Rowe and Martin JJ. concurring) R. v. Beaudry, 2019 SCC 2, [2019] 1 S.C.R. 95 Her Majesty The Queen Applicant v. Corporal R.P. Beaudry Respondent Indexed as: R. v. Beaudry 2019 SCC 2

File No.: 38308. 2019: January 14. Present: Gascon, Côté, Brown, Rowe and Martin JJ. motion for a stay of a declaration of invalidity Judgments and orders — Stay of execution — Declaration of invalidity — Court Martial Appeal Court of Canada declarings. 130(1)(

a) of the National Defence Act of no force or effect in its application to any civil offence for which maximum sentence isimprisonment for five years of more — Applicant appealing Court Martial Appeal Court’s judgment and bringing motion to staydeclaration of invalidity until final disposition of appeal — Balance of convenience does not favour granting stay — Stay denied —National Defence Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. N-5, s. 130(1)(a). Cases Cited Referred to: Manitoba (Attorney General) v. Metropolitan Stores Ltd., (SCC), [1987] 1 S.C.R. 110; RJR —MacDonald Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General), (SCC), [1994] 1 S.C.R. 311.

MOTION to stay the declaration of invalidity issued by the Court Martial Appeal Court of Canada (Bell C.J. and Gagné andOuellette JJ.A.), 2018 CMAC 4, [2018] C.M.A.J. No. 4 (QL), 2018 CarswellNat 5345 (WL Can.). Motion dismissed. Anthony M. Tamburro, Bruce MacGregor and R. Dylan Kerr, for the applicant. Mark Létourneau and Jean-Bruno Cloutier, for the respondent.

The order of the Court was delivered orally by [1] Gascon J. — We are all of the view that the Crown’s motion to stay the declaration of invalidity in the CourtMartial Appeal Court judgment of September 19, 2018, should be dismissed. [2] The applicable criteria set out in Manitoba (Attorney General) v. Metropolitan Stores Ltd., (SCC),[1987] 1 S.C.R. 110, and RJR — MacDonald Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General), (SCC), [1994] 1 S.C.R. 311, are notin dispute. The Crown has failed in our view to establish that the balance of convenience favours granting the stay sought. [3] The motion is therefore dismissed.

Order accordingly. Solicitor for the applicant: Canadian Military Prosecution Service, Ottawa. Solicitor for the respondent: Defence Counsel Services, Gatineau.