Courts Martial

Decision Information

Chisholm S.C. (Ex-Corporal), R. v.

Collection Courts Martial
Date 2006-03-22
Neutral citation 2006 CM 07
Docket C200607
Judge P.J. Lamont
Decision type Charter Decisions
Decision status Available
Type of Court Martial Standing Court Martial
See also See also - Chisholm S.C. (Ex-Corporal), R. v. - 2006 CM 07 - 2006-03-22 - Charter Decisions
See also - Chisholm S.C. (Ex-Corporal), R. v. - 2006 CM 07 - 2006-03-22 - Charter Decisions
Notes

Archived Content

Information identified as archived is provided for reference, research or recordkeeping purposes. It is not subject to the Government of Canada Web Standards and has not been altered or updated since it was archived. Please contact us to request a format other than those available.

Summary:

Date of commencement of the trial: 21 March 2006.
Location: CFB Borden, CFMSS Auditorium, 30 Ortona Road, Borden, ON.
Charges:
• Charges 1, 2: S. 83 NDA, disobeyed a lawful command of a superior officer.
• Charge 3 (alternate to charge 4): S. 96 NDA, knowingly made a false accusation against a non-commissioned member).
• Charge 4 (alternate to charge 3): S. 129 NDA, an act to the prejudice of good order and discipline.
Results:
• FINDINGS: Charges 1, 2, 3, 4: A stay of proceedings.

Decision Content

Page 1 of 2 Citation: R. v. Ex-Corporal S.C. Chisholm, 2006 CM 07 Docket: C200607 STANDING COURT MARTIAL CANADA ONTARIO CANADIAN FORCES BASE BORDEN Date: 22 March 2006 PRESIDING: COMMANDER P.J. LAMONT, M.J. HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN v. ex-CORPORAL S.C. CHISHOLM (Accused) DECISION IN RESPECT OF A PLEA IN BAR OF TRIAL FOR AN ALLEGED VIOLATION OF SECTION 11(d) OF THE CANADIAN CHARTER OF RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS. (Rendered Orally) [1] There is an application before the court, a written Notice of Application, which launches this plea in bar of trial. Counsel says, as I understand him, that the court has lost jurisdiction because it is not an independent and impartial tribunal as guaranteed by section 11(d) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. [2] As I indicated, I dealt with this issue in the case of Corporal Parsons in Gagetown, and released reasons for that ruling on 31 January 2006. In the course of those reasons, I made a declaration that certain provisions of the Queen's Regulations and Orders for the Canadian Forces dealing with the renewal of the appointment of military judges were unconstitutional. I also ruled that QR&O article 19.75, dealing with the suspension from duty of military judges, was also unconstitutional. All by reason of the guarantee of judicial independence contained in section 11(d) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In other respects, the application in Parsons was dismissed.
Page 2 of 2 [3] Counsel raises the same point in this case. For the reasons that I gave in Parsons, the application succeeds in respect of the declarations sought that were granted in my reasons in the case of Corporal Parsons, and the application in this case is otherwise dismissed. [4] In my view, this ruling does not affect the jurisdiction of this court, nor did it affect the jurisdiction of the court in Parsons.T he plea in bar is, therefore, denied. COMMANDER P.J. LAMONT, M.J. Counsel: Major J-B. Cloutier, Directorate Military Prosecutions Counsel for Her Majesty The Queen Major A.M. Tamborro, Directorate Military Prosecutions Counsel for Her Majesty The Queen Lieutenant-Commander G.W. Thompson, Directorate of Military Prosecutions Counsel for Her Majesty The Queen Lieutenant-Commander J.C.P. Levesque, Directorate of Defence Counsel Services Counsel for ex-Corporal S.C. Chisholm
 You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.