2024 SCC 15 – R. v. Edwards

To support us, please follow us wherever you're listening and visit ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠our website⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ to provide feedback.

Constitutional law — Charter of Rights — Independent and impartial tribunal

(00:00:58) Summary

(00:01:07) Facts and Procedural History

(00:03:27) Disposition

(00:03:32) Per Wagner C.J. and Côté, Rowe, Kasirer, Jamal and O’Bonsawin JJ.

(00:14:43) Per Karakatsanis J. (dissenting)

(00:22:26) Reasons for Judgment: Kasirer J. (Wagner C.J. and Côté, Rowe, Jamal and O’Bonsawin JJ. concurring)

(00:22:35) I. Overview – 1

(00:35:39) II. Background – 16

(00:41:09) III. Judicial History – 31

(00:41:11) A. Courts Martial – 31

(00:41:13) (1) R. v. Edwards, 2020 CM; R. v. Crépeau, 2020 CM; R. v. Fontaine, 2020 CM; and R. v. Iredale, 2020 CM – 31

(00:42:53) (2) R. v. Christmas, 2020 CM; and R. v. Proulx, 2020 CM – 33

(00:43:27) (3) R. v. Cloutier, 2020 CM; and R. v. Brown, 2021 CM – 34

(00:44:07) (4) R. v. Thibault, 2020 CM – 35

(00:44:21) B. Court Martial Appeal Court of Canada – 36

(00:44:24) (1) R. v. Edwards; R. v. Crépeau; R. v. Fontaine; R. v. Iredale, 2021 CMAC (“Edwards et al.”) – 36

(00:49:37) (2) R. v. Proulx; R. v. Cloutier, 2021 CMAC (“Proulx et al.”) – 45

(00:50:20) (3) R. v. Christmas, 2022 CMAC; R. v. Brown, 2022 CMAC; and R. v. Thibault, 2022 CMAC – 46

(00:51:05) IV. Issues and Submissions of the Parties – 47

(00:55:47) V. Relevant Constitutional and Statutory Provisions – 54

(01:06:09) VI. Analysis – 64

(01:06:11) A. Implications of Généreux – 64

(01:21:50) B. Do the Requirements in Sections 165.21 and 165.24(2) Meet the Standards of Judicial Independence and Impartiality Under Section 11(d) of the Charter? – 84

(01:22:05) (1) The Framework for Assessing the Independence of Military Judges – 84

(01:24:32) (2) The Three Essential Conditions of Judicial Independence Are Met Through Provisions of the NDA – 87

(01:32:53) (a) Security of Tenure – 99

(01:33:58) (i) The Concerns Identified in Généreux Have Been Addressed – 101

(01:35:33) (ii) Security Against Removal From Office Except for Cause – 103

(01:43:24) (b) Financial Security – 113

(01:44:39) (c) Administrative Independence – 115

(01:46:05) (3) Arguments Advanced by the Appellants That Impugn the Institutional Impartiality of Military Judges – 118

(02:09:43) VII. Conclusion – 149

(02:10:16) Dissenting Reasons: Karakatsanis J.

(02:10:21) I. Introduction – 150

(02:14:01) II. Background – 155

(02:16:01) III. Analysis – 160

(02:17:08) A. Legal Principles – 162

(02:23:26) B. The Disciplinary Framework Applicable to Military Judges – 174

(02:29:03) C. A Reasonable and Informed Person Would Apprehend Bias – 185

(02:33:36) D. The Existing Safeguards Are Insufficient – 194

(02:34:22) (1) The Oath of Office – 195

(02:35:56) (2) The Removal Process Through the MJIC – 199

(02:37:40) (3) The Presumption of Independence by Prosecution – 203

(02:40:50) IV. Conclusion – 208