R. v. Généreux, 8 CRR (2d) 89

Judge:Cory, McLachlin, Stevenson and Iacobucci, JJ.
Court:Supreme Court of Canada
Case Date:June 05, 1991
Jurisdiction:Canada (Federal)
Citations:8 CRR (2d) 89;133 NR 241;[1992] ACS no 10;15 WCB (2d) 84;88 DLR (4th) 110;70 CCC (3d) 1;[1992] SCJ No 10 (QL);1992 CanLII 117 (SCC);(1992), 133 N.R. 241 (SCC);JE 92-287;[1992] 1 SCR 259;8 CCR (2d) 89
 
FREE EXCERPT

R. v. Généreux (1992), 133 N.R. 241 (SCC)

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]

....................

Michel Généreux (appellant) v. Her Majesty the Queen (respondent)

(No. 22103)

Indexed As: R. v. Généreux

Supreme Court of Canada

Lamer, C.J.C., La Forest,

L'Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier,

Cory, McLachlin, Stevenson and

Iacobucci, JJ.

February 13, 1992.

Summary:

The accused, a Canadian Forces corporal, was convicted by a five member General Court Martial of three narcotic offences and of being absent without leave. The accused appealed, raising Charter issues.

The Court Martial Appeal Court of Canada, Décary, J., dissenting, in a decision reported 114 N.R. 321, dismissed the appeal. The accused appealed again. The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada posed the following constitutional questions:

1. Do ss. 166 to 170 of the National Defence Act and the Queen's Regulations and Orders, inasmuch as they allow an accused to be tried by General Court Martial, restrict the accused's right to a fair and public hearing by an indepen­dent and impartial tribunal guaranteed by ss. 7 and 11(d) of the Charter?

2. If the answer to question one is yes, are the restrictions justified under s. 1 of the Charter?

3. Does s. 130 of the National Defence Act infringe s. 15 of the Charter because it confers jurisdiction on a General Court Martial to try offences under the Narcotic Control Act, thereby depriving an accused of the procedure normally applicable to such offences?

4. If the answer to question three is yes, is s. 130 justified under s. 1 of the Char­ter?

The Supreme Court of Canada, L'Heureux-Dubé, J., dissenting, answered question one in the affirmative, holding that ss. 166 to 170 of the National Defence Act and the Queen's Regulations and Orders were contrary to s. 11(d) of the Charter. Further, in answering question two in the negative, the court held that the impugned provisions could not be justified under s. 1 of the Charter. The court answered question three in the negative, holding that s. 130 of the National Defence Act was not contrary to s. 15 of the Charter. Question four, there­fore, did not arise. In the result, the court allowed the accused's appeal and directed that a new trial take place.

Armed Forces - Topic 8621

Offences - Trials - General - The Supreme Court of Canada reviewed the system of military courts in Canada - See paragraphs 67 to 101.

Armed Forces - Topic 8625

Offences - Trials - General Court Martials - The Supreme Court of Canada reviewed the structure of the General Court Martial in Canada - See paragraphs 72 to 78.

Armed Forces - Topic 8625

Offences - Trials - General Court Martials - [See first and third Civil Rights - Topic 3135 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 3135

Trials - Due process, fundamental justice and fair hearings - Criminal and quasi-criminal proceedings - Right to indepen­dent and impartial tribunal - The Supreme Court of Canada held that a military Gen­eral Court Martial, as it existed before January 22, 1991, was contrary to s. 11(d) of the Charter - The court held that the General Court Martial was not an inde­pendent tribunal because the members lacked security of tenure, had insufficient financial security and there was a lack of institutional independence - See para­graphs 79 to 107 - The court held that the Charter violation could not be justified under s. 1 - See paragraphs 109 to 116.

Civil Rights - Topic 3135

Trials - Due process, fundamental justice and fair hearings - Criminal and quasi-criminal proceedings - Right to indepen­dent and impartial tribunal - The Supreme Court of Canada reviewed the criteria set out previously by the court to give mean­ing to the principles of independence and impartiality embraced by s. 11(d) of the Charter - The court set out the appropriate test to be applied under s. 11(d) - See paragraphs 33 to 48, 66.

Civil Rights - Topic 3135

Trials - Due process, fundamental justice and fair hearings - Criminal and quasi-criminal proceedings - Right to indepen­dent and impartial tribunal - The Supreme Court of Canada held that a parallel sys­tem of military tribunals, staffed by mem­bers of the military who are aware of and sensitive to military concerns, is not "by its very nature" inconsistent with s. 11(d) of the Charter - The court examined why the Charter permits a parallel system of jus­tice, such as that found under the Na­tional Defence Act, to exist alongside the ordi­nary criminal courts - The court stated that the constitutional guarantee of an independent and impartial tribunal may well be different in the military context, but any such parallel system must comply with s. 11(d) - See paragraphs 33 to 66.

Civil Rights - Topic 3135

Trials - Due process, fundamental justice and fair hearings - Criminal and quasi-criminal proceedings - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that "the Charter does not require, nor would it be appropriate to impose, uniform institutional standards on all tribunals subject to s. 11(d)" - See paragraph 86.

Civil Rights - Topic 5679.1

Equality and protection of the law - Armed forces (incl. court martials and bail) - An armed forces member argued that he was discriminated against contrary to s. 15 of the Charter, because s. 130 of the National Defence Act deprived him of access to the normal procedures for deal­ing with offences - The Supreme Court of Canada held that the member did not belong to a "discrete and insular minority" such as to bring himself within s. 15 - The court qualified its finding however, by stating that its conclusion was confined to the context of this appeal, and the court was not suggesting that military personnel could never be the objects of disadvantage or discrimination within the meaning of s. 15 - See paragraphs 103, 104.

Civil Rights - Topic 8305.1

Canadian Charter of Rights and Free­doms - Application - Section 11 - The Supreme Court of Canada held that a member of the armed forces charged with offences under the Code of Service Disci­pline and subject to the jurisdiction of a General Court Martial may invoke the protection of s. 11 of the Charter - See paragraphs 29 to 33.

Civil Rights - Topic 8348

Canadian Charter of Rights and Free­doms - Application - Exceptions - Rea­sonable limits prescribed by law (s. 1) - [See first Civil Rights - Topic 3135 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 8368

Canadian Charter of Rights and Free­doms - Denial of rights - Remedies - Exclusion of evidence - Police searched the off base residence of an armed forces member for narcotics - The search was contrary to s. 8 of the Charter, however a General Court Martial refused to exclude the evidence under s. 24(2) of the Char­ter - The Supreme Court of Canada affirmed that the evidence was properly admitted - See paragraphs 105 to 108.

Cases Noticed:

Génereux v. Canada (Cour martial gén­éral), [1989] 2 F.C. 685; 26 F.T.R. 6 (F.C.T.D.), refd to. [para. 8].

Genereux v. Canada, [1989] 3 F.C. 352; 28 F.T.R. 99 (F.C.T.D.), refd to. [para. 9].

R. v. Wigglesworth, [1987] 2 S.C.R. 541; 81 N.R. 161; 61 Sask.R. 105; 24 O.A.C. 321; 45 D.L.R.(4th) 235, refd to. [paras. 13, 30, 31].

R. v. Valente, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 673; 64 N.R. 1; 14 O.A.C. 79, appld. [paras. 13, 20, 23, 24, 36, 40, 41, 46, 59, 79-101, 121, 125, 153-168, 174].

Schick v. Canada (1987), 95 N.R. 270; 4 C.M.A.R. 540 (C.M.A.C.), refd to. [paras. 13, 23, 163].

Southam Inc. v. Hunter, [1984] 2 S.C.R. 145; 55 N.R. 241; 55 A.R. 291; 9 C.R.R. 355; 14 C.C.C.(3d) 97; 41 C.R.(3d) 97; [1984] 6 W.W.R. 577; 33 Alta. L.R.(2d) 193; 27 B.L.R. 297; 84 D.T.C. 6467; 2 C.P.R.(3d) 1; 11 D.L.R.(4th) 641, refd to. [para. 15].

R. v. Collins, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 265; 74 N.R. 276; 56 C.R.(3d) 193; [1987] 3 W.W.R. 699; 38 D.L.R.(4th) 508; 33 C.C.C.(3d) 1, refd to. [paras. 15, 16, 107].

R. v. Strachan, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 980; 90 N.R. 273, refd to. [paras. 15, 107].

Andrews v. Law Society of British Co­lumbia, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 143; 91 N.R. 255; 56 D.L.R.(4th) 1, refd to. [paras. 16, 103].

R. v. Turpin, Siddiqui and Clauzel, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 1296; 96 N.R. 115; 34 O.A.C. 115, refd to. [para. 16].

R. v. MacKay, [1980] 2 S.C.R. 370; 33 N.R. 1, refd to. [paras. 18, 20, 23, 24, 33, 50-59, 61, 119, 127, 148, 151].

Beauregard v. Canada, [1986] 2 S.C.R. 56; 70 N.R. 1, refd to. [paras. 20, 24, 37, 126, 170].

MacKeigan, J.A. et al. v. Royal Commis­sion (Marshall Inquiry), [1989] 2 S.C.R. 796; 100 N.R. 81; 94 N.S.R.(2d) 1; 247 A.P.R. 1, refd to. [paras. 20, 24, 44, 170].

Consolidated Bathurst Packaging Ltd. v. International Woodworkers of America, Local 2-69 and Labour Relations Board (Ont.), [1990] 1 S.C.R. 282; 105 N.R. 161; 38 O.A.C. 321; 68 D.L.R.(4th) 524, refd to. [para. 20].

Lippé et autres v. Québec (Procureur gén­éral) et autres, [1991] 2 S.C.R. 114; 128 N.R. 1; 39 Q.A.C. 241, refd to. [paras. 37, 170].

R. v. Lippé - see Lippé et autres v. Què­bec (Procureur général) et autres.

MacKay v. Rippon, [1978] 1 F.C. 233, refd to. [para. 60].

R. v. Ingebrigtson (1990), 114 N.R. 381; 61 C.C.C.(3d) 541 (C.M.A.C.), refd to. [para. 86].

Reference Re s. 94(2) of the Motor Vehicle Act (B.C.), [1985] 2 S.C.R. 486; 63 N.R. 266; [1986] 1 W.W.R. 481; 23 C.C.C.(3d) 289; 48 C.R.(3d) 289; 69 B.C.L.R. 145; 36 M.V.R. 240; 18 C.R.R. 30; 24 D.L.R.(4th) 536, refd to. [paras. 102, 144].

R. v. Oakes, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 103; 65 N.R. 87; 14 O.A.C. 335; 26 D.L.R.(4th) 200; 50 C.R.(3d) 1; 24 C.C.C.(3d) 321; 19 C.R.R. 308, refd to. [para. 110].

Reference Re Com­pul­sory Arbitration, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 313; 74 N.R. 99; 78 A.R. 1; 38 D.L.R. (4th) 161, refd to. [paras. 142, 144].

Edmonton Journal v. Alberta (Attorney General), [1989] 2 S.C.R. 1326; 102 N.R. 321; 103 A.R. 321; 64 D.L.R.(4th) 577, refd to. [paras. 143, 144].

R. v. Wholesale Travel Group Inc. and Chedore (1991) 130 N.R. 1; 49 O.A.C. 161 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 144].

Kindler v. Canada (Minister of Justice) (1991), 129 N.R. 81 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 144].

R. v. Seaboyer and Gayme (1991), 128 N.R. 81; 48 O.A.C. 81 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 144].

R. v. Keegs­tra, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 697; 117 N.R. 1; 114 A.R. 81, refd to. [para. 145].

Committee for the Commonwealth of Canada et al. v. Canada, [1991] 1 S.C.R. 139; 120 N.R. 241, refd to. [para. 145].

Statutes Noticed:

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982, sect. 1 [paras. 14, 25, 66, 101, 109-114, 144, 145, 176]; sect. 7 [paras. 1, 8, 102, 176]; sect. 8 [paras. 15, 16, 106]; sect. 11(d) [para. 1 et seq.]; sect. 11(f) [paras. 64, 65, 146]; sect. 15 [paras. 1, 8, 13, 14, 16, 103, 104, 176]; sect. 24(1) [para. 13]; sect. 24(2) [paras. 15, 105-108, 176].

Canadian Forces Administrative Orders, 4-1 - see National Defence Act, Canadian Forces Administrative Orders.

Code of Service Discipline, Armed Forces - see National Defence Act, Code of Service Discipline.

Constitution Act, 1867, sect. 91(7) [para. 53].

Narcotic Control Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. N-1, sect. 4 [para. 2].

National Defence Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. N-5, sect. 9 [para. 80]; sect. 28, sect. 35 [para. 90]; sect. 66, sect. 71 [para. 31]; sect. 88(1) [para. 2]; sect. 90(1) [para. 10]; sect. 130(1) [para. 2]; sect. 151 [para. 14]; sect. 163(2) [para. 68]; sect. 165 [para. 72]; sect. 166 [para. 27]; sect. 167, sect. 168 [para. 75]; sect. 169 [para. 80]; sect. 170, sect. 187 [para. 75]; sect. 188 [para. 78]; sect. 192 [paras. 75, 77]; sect. 230 [para. 11].

National Defence Act, Canadian Forces Administrative Orders, 4-1 [paras. 67, 81].

National Defence Act, Code of Service Discipline.

National Defence Act, Queen's Regulations and Orders for the Canadian Forces, sect. 4.09 [paras. 89, 100]; sect. 26.10, sect. 26.11 [para. 95]; sect. 108.30, sect. 109.01 [para. 70]; sect. 110.06 [para. 71]; sect. 111.05 [paras. 72, 99, 169]; sect. 111.06(Note B), sect. 111.18, 111.21(Note A) [para. 75]; sect. 111.22 [paras. 80, 89, 100]; sect. 111.23 [paras. 74, 99, 169]; sect. 112.05(4a), sect. 112.06 [para. 77]; sect. 112.15, sect. 112.16 [para. 78]; 1sect. 12.54 [paras. 75, 77]; sect. 112.64(2) [paras. 85, 163].

Queen's Regulations and Orders for the Canadian Forces - see National Defence Act, Queen's Regulations and Orders for the Canadian Forces.

Authors and Works Noticed:

Fay, James B., Canadian Military Criminal Law: An Examination of Military Justice (1975), 23 Chitty's L.J. 120, pp. 123 [para. 149]; 228 [para. 63].

Heard, Andrew D., Military Law and the Charter of Rights (1988), 11 Dalhousie L.J. 514, p. 514 [para. 150].

Counsel:

Guy Cournoyer, Jean Asselin and Sylvie Roussel, for the appellant;

Jean-Marc Aubry, Q.C., Richard Morneau, Bernard Laprade, Lt. Col. K.S. Carter and Major M.H. Coulombe, for the re­spondent.

Solicitors of Record:

Fortin, Le Bouthillier, Quebec, Quebec, and Poupart & Cournoyer, Montreal, Quebec, for the appellant;

Jean-Marc Aubry, Richard Morneau and Bernard Laprade, Ottawa, Ontario, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard on June 5, 1991, before Lamer, C.J.C., La Forest, L'Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin, Stevenson and Iacobucci, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada. The decision of the court was delivered in both official languages on February 13, 1992, including the following opinions:

Lamer, C.J.C. (Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory and Iacobucci, JJ., concurring) - see paragraphs 1 to 116;

Stevenson, J. (La Forest and McLachlin, JJ., concurring) - see paragraphs 117 to 138;

L'Heureux-Dubé, J., dissenting - see paragraphs 139 to 177.

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP