R. v. LaFlamme, (2014) 469 N.R. 200 (CMAC)

• Judge: Cournoyer, Mainville and Gagné, JJ.A.
• Case Date: August 26, 2014
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (2014), 469 N.R. 200 (CMAC);2014 CMAC 11

R. v. LaFlamme (2014), 469 N.R. 200 (CMAC)

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

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

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

Temp. Cite: [2014] N.R. TBEd. FE.001

Master Corporal LaFlamme (appellant) v. Her Majesty The Queen (respondent)

(CMAC-565; 2014 CMAC 11)

Indexed As: R. v. LaFlamme

Court Martial Appeal Court

Cournoyer, Mainville and Gagné, JJ.A.

August 26, 2014.

Summary:

A member of the armed forces appealed the decision of a Standing Court Martial convicting him of two counts of obstructing military police officers (Criminal Code, s. 129(a)). The member argued that the military judge erred in failing to provide adequate reasons for rejecting the defence of excessive force by the military police and erred in rejecting testimony based on the rule in Browne v. Dunn notwithstanding that he had already determined that the rule did not apply.

The Court Martial Appeal Court, in a judgment reported (2014), 464 N.R. 338, allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial. The military judge decided not to apply the rule in Browne v. Dunn, but then applied it in his judgment to assess the credibility of the witnesses. By doing so, it was not possible to explain the verdict or determine whether the principle of reasonable doubt was correctly applied. The member sought costs under rule 21 of the Court Martial Appeal Court Rules.

The Court Martial Appeal Court denied costs. The general rule was that costs were denied except where the case was "remarkable" or there was oppressive or improper conduct by the prosecutor.

Armed Forces - Topic 8840

Offences - Appeals - Costs - A member of the armed forces successfully appealed the decision of a Standing Court Martial convicting him of two counts of obstructing military police officers (Criminal Code, s. 129(a)) - The member sought costs under rule 21 of the Court Martial Appeal Court Rules - The Court Martial Appeal Court held that a court of appeal will deny costs to an accused who successfully appealed a criminal matter except where the case was remarkable or there was oppressive or improper prosecutorial conduct - The court held that those criminal law principles applied to court martials - Applying those principles, the court denied costs.

Criminal Law - Topic 4591

Procedure - Costs - On appeal - Against the Crown - [See Armed Forces - Topic 8840 ].

Cases Noticed:

R. v. C.A.M., [1996] 1 S.C.R. 500; 194 N.R. 321; 73 B.C.A.C. 81; 120 W.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 2].

R. v. Trask, [1987] 2 S.C.R. 304; 79 N.R. 145; 68 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 271; 209 A.P.R. 271, refd to. [para. 2].

Tele-Mobile Co. v. Ontario et al., [2008] 1 S.C.R. 305; 372 N.R. 157; 235 O.A.C. 369; 2008 SCC 12, refd to. [para. 2].

Canada (Attorney General) v. Foster et al. (2006), 217 O.A.C. 173; 215 C.C.C.(3d) 59 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 2].

R. v. Cole (R.), [2012] 3 S.C.R. 34; 436 N.R. 102; 297 O.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 3].

R. v. Bernier, 2003 CMAC 7, refd to. [para. 4].

R. v. Rose, 2005 CMAC 4, refd to. [para. 4].

R. v. Dominie (A.), [2002] N.R. Uned. 324; 2002 CMAC 8, refd to. [para. 4].

Counsel:

Michel Drapeau, for the appellant, Master Corporal LaFlamme;

Major Éric Carrier, for the respondent, Her Majesty the Queen.

Solicitors of Record:

Michel Drapeau, Ottawa, Ontario, for the appellant, Master Corporal LaFlamme;

Commander J.B.M. Pelletier, Deputy Director of Military Prosecutions, Ottawa, Ontario, for the respondent, Her Majesty The Queen.

This appeal was heard on March 14, 2014, at Ottawa, Ontario, before Cournoyer, Mainville and Gagné, JJ.A., of the Court Martial Appeal Court.

On August 26, 2014, Cournoyer, J.A., delivered the following supplemental judgment on costs for the Court.