R. v. Larouche (R.), (2014) 460 N.R. 248 (CMAC)

• Judge: Cournoyer, Boivin and Doyon, JJ.A.
• Case Date: November 08, 2013
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (2014), 460 N.R. 248 (CMAC);2014 CMAC 6

R. v. Larouche (R.) (2014), 460 N.R. 248 (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. MY.002

Soldat Réjean Larouche (appelant) v. Sa Majesté la Reine (intimée)

(CMAC-558; 2014 CMAC 6; 2014 CACM 6)

Indexed As: R. v. Larouche (R.)

Court Martial Appeal Court

Cournoyer, Boivin and Doyon, JJ.A.

April 30, 2014.

Summary:

The accused, a Private in the armed forces, was charged with a number of sexual offences, including voyeurism (Criminal Code, s. 162(5)) and possession of child pornography (s. 163.1(4)).

A Standing Court Martial convicted the accused (2012 CM 3009). The accused appealed, arguing that s. 130(1)(a) of the National Defence Act, which provided for service trials for civil offences, was unconstitutional. The accused argued further that the trial judge erred in refusing to exclude evidence under s. 24(2) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The Court Martial Appeal Court allowed the appeal and acquitted the accused. The constitutionality of s. 130(1)(a) could be preserved by reading in a military nexus test. The court held that the trial judge erred in refusing to exclude evidence which was gathered under two search warrants that had been declared invalid.

Armed Forces - Topic 8621

Offences - Trials - General - The Court Martial Appeal Court stated that "An offence set out in section 130 of the NDA [National Defence Act] may be tried under the Code of Service Discipline when it is so connected with the service in its nature, and in the circumstances of its commission, that it would tend to affect the general standard of discipline and efficiency of the Canadian Forces. Such an offence is an offence under military law within the meaning of section 11(f) of the Charter and must be tried before a Canadian military tribunal because it pertains directly to the discipline, efficiency and morale of the military. This is the interpretation that has been adopted by this Court over the last thirty years. No compelling reason has ever been provided for the Court to depart from this interpretation, which has stood the test of time. The military nexus test is part of the 'pith and marrow' of Canadian military law. It is not appropriate today to perform a new constitutional surgery" - See paragraphs 21 to 23.

Armed Forces - Topic 8621

Offences - Trials - General - Section 130(1)(a) of the National Defence Act (NDA) provided for service trials of civil offences where the act or omission took place in Canada and was punishable under Part VII, the Criminal Code or any other Act of Parliament - To avoid the overbreadth of that section, the courts had historically integrated a military nexus test into s. 130 - The Court Martial Appeal Court held that the reading in of the military nexus test into s. 130 was completely justified - Section 130(1) violated s. 7 and 11(f) of the Charter because it was overbroad, which was likely, without applying the military nexus test, to deprive Canadian military personal of their constitutional right to the benefit of a trial by jury - Section 130 did not comply with principles of fundamental justice because it went too far by sweeping conduct into its ambit that bore no relation to its objective - It was, however, possible and constitutionally appropriate to read down this section to limit its scope and to read into it the military nexus test as had been done by the courts since 1983 - See paragraphs 8 to 134.

Armed Forces - Topic 8621

Offences - Trials - General - Section 130(1)(a) of the National Defence Act (NDA) provided for service trials of civil offences where the "Act or omission" (a) took place in Canada and was punishable under Part VII, the Criminal Code or any other Act of Parliament - The Court Martial Appeal Court held that to preserve its constitutionality, it was necessary to read into s. 130(1)(a) a military nexus test - The court stated that s. 130(1) should now be read as follows: "(1) An act or omission which is so connected with the service in its nature, and in the circumstances of its commission, that it would tend to affect the general standard of discipline and efficiency of the service of the Canadian Forces (a) that takes place in Canada and is punishable under Part VII, the Criminal Code or any other Act of Parliament ..." - See paragraph 134.

Civil Rights - Topic 3107.2

Trials - Due process, fundamental justice and fair hearings - General principles and definitions - Overbreadth principle - [See second Armed Forces - Topic 8621 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 3138

Trials - Due process, fundamental justice and fair hearings - Criminal and quasi-criminal proceedings - Right to jury and jury selection (Charter s. 11(f)) - [See first and second Armed Forces - Topic 8621 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 8368

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Denial of rights - Remedies - Exclusion of evidence - The accused, a Private in the Armed Forces, was convicted by standing court martial of voyeurism and possession of child pornography - He appealed, arguing that the military judge erred in refusing to exclude evidence seized under search warrants that were declared invalid because there was a complete lack of grounds establishing the commission of a criminal offence (Charter, s. 24) - The Court Martial Appeal Court allowed the appeal and acquitted the accused - The military judge failed to complete the analysis that was required in the circumstances as to the seriousness of the Charter-infringing state conduct - Here, the police officer and authorizing judge were unaware of the essential elements of the offence of voyeurism - The seriousness of the breach and the impact on Charter-protected interests favoured excluding the evidence - Society's interest in the adjudication of the case on the merits was undeniable - The military judge neglected to consider the importance of dissociating the justice system from flagrant breaches of Charter rights - See paragraphs 136 to 213.

Civil Rights - Topic 8380.1

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Denial of rights - Remedies - Reading in - [See second and third Armed Forces - Topic 8621 ].

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Wigman, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 246; 75 N.R. 51, refd to. [para. 3, footnote 4].

R. v. Moriarity (2014), 455 N.R. 59; 2014 CMAC 1, folld. [para. 3, footnote 5].

R. v. Brown (A.R.R.), [1993] 2 S.C.R. 918; 155 N.R. 225; 141 A.R. 163; 46 W.A.C. 163, refd to. [para. 3, footnote 6].

R. v. Ionson, [1989] 2 S.C.R. 1073; 120 N.R. 81, refd to. [para. 5, footnote 8].

R. v. Vezina (A.) (2014), 461 N.R. 286; 2014 CMAC 3, refd to. [para. 8].

R. v. Big M Drug Mart Ltd., [1985] 1 S.C.R. 295; 58 N.R. 81; 60 A.R. 161, refd to. [para. 9, footnote 11].

R. v. DeSousa, [1992] 2 S.C.R. 944; 142 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 9, footnote 12].

R. v. Smith (E.D.), [1987] 1 S.C.R. 1045; 75 N.R. 321, refd to. [para. 9, footnote 13].

R. v. Généreux, [1992] 1 S.C.R. 259; 133 N.R. 241, refd to. [para. 13, footnote 15].

R. v. MacDonald (1983), 6 C.C.C.(3d) 551; 4 C.M.A.R. 277 (Ct. Martial App. Ct.), refd to. [para. 14, footnote 16].

R. v. Wehmeier (P.) (2014), 459 N.R. 22; 2014 CMAC 5, refd to. [para. 16, footnote 17].

R. v. J.S.K.T., (2008), 232 C.C.C.(3d) 498; 2008 CMAC 3 (Can. Ct. Martial App. Ct.), refd to. [para. 16, footnote 17].

R. v. Trépanier - see R. v. J.S.K.T.

Bedford et al. v. Canada (Attorney General) (2013), 452 N.R. 1; 312 O.A.C. 53; 2013 SCC 72, refd to. [para. 17, footnote 19].

R. v. Catudal (1985), 63 N.R. 58; 18 C.C.C.(3d) 189; 4 C.M.A.R. 338, refd to. [para. 18, footnote 20].

R. v. MacKay, [1980] 2 S.C.R. 370; 33 N.R. 1; 54 C.C.C.(2d) 129, refd to. [para. 18, footnote 21].

R. v. Heywood (R.L.), [1994] 3 S.C.R. 761; 174 N.R. 81; 50 B.C.A.C. 161; 82 W.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 18, footnote 21].

R. v. Sharpe (J.R.), [2001] 1 S.C.R. 45; 264 N.R. 201; 146 B.C.A.C. 161; 239 W.A.C. 161; 2001 SCC 2, refd to. [para. 18, footnote 21].

Schachter v. Canada et al., [1992] 2 S.C.R. 679; 139 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 19, footnote 22].

R. v. Ferguson (M.E.), [2008] 1 S.C.R. 96; 371 N.R. 231; 425 A.R. 79; 418 W.A.C. 79; 2008 SCC 6, refd to. [para. 19, footnote 23].

R. v. Sellars, [1980] 1 S.C.R. 527; 32 N.R. 70, refd to. [para. 32, footnote 28].

R. v. Reddick (1996), 112 C.C.C.(3d) 491 (C.M.A.C.), dist. [para. 32, footnote 29].

R. v. Lévesque, [1999] C.M.A.J. No. 7, refd to. [para. 32, footnote 30].

R. v. Sullivan (1986), 4 C.M.A.R. 414, leave to appeal refused [1986] 2 S.C.R. ix; 72 N.R. 78, refd to. [para. 45, footnote 32].

O'Callahan v. Parker (1969), 395 U.S. 258, refd to. [para. 45, footnote 33].

Relford v. Commandant (1970), 397 U.S. 934, refd to. [para. 45, footnote 34].

Solorio v. United States (1986), 483 U.S. 435, refd to. [para. 50, footnote 36].

R. v. Oakes, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 103; 65 N.R. 87; 14 O.A.C. 335, refd to. [para. 56, footnote 46].

R. v. Turpin, Siddiqui and Clauzel, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 1296; 96 N.R. 115; 34 O.A.C. 115, refd to. [para. 58, footnote 49].

R. v. Sherratt, [1991] 1 S.C.R. 509; 122 N.R. 241; 73 Man.R.(2d) 161, refd to. [para. 58, footnote 50].

R. v. Davey (T.G.), [2012] 3 S.C.R. 828; 437 N.R. 250; 297 O.A.C. 151; 2012 SCC 75, refd to. [para. 58, footnote 50].

R. v. Brown (1995), 35 C.R.(4th) 318 (C.M.A.C.), refd to. [para. 61, footnote 53].

MacKay v. Rippon, [1978] 1 F.C. 233 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 73, footnote 60].

Sauvé v. Canada (Chief Electoral Officer) et al., [2002] 3 S.C.R. 519; 294 N.R. 1; 2002 SCC 68, refd to. [para. 74, footnote 62].

R. v. Bryan (P.C.) et al., [2007] 1 S.C.R. 527; 359 N.R. 1; 237 B.C.A.C. 33; 392 W.A.C. 33; 2007 SCC 12, refd to. [para. 74, footnote 62].

PHS Community Services Society et al. v. Canada (Attorney General), [2011] 3 S.C.R. 134; 421 N.R. 1; 310 B.C.A.C. 1; 526 W.A.C. 1; 2011 SCC 44, refd to. [para. 81, footnote 66].

R. v. Seaboyer and Gayme, [1991] 2 S.C.R. 577; 128 N.R. 81; 48 O.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 85, footnote 68].

R. v. Bernard, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 833; 90 N.R. 321; 32 O.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 87, footnote 70].

Minister of National Revenue v. Craig, [2012] 2 S.C.R. 489; 433 N.R. 111; 2012 SCC 43, refd to. [para. 87, footnote 70].

R. v. LeBlanc (A.) (2011), 425 N.R. 96; 2011 CMAC 2, refd to. [para. 97, footnote 83].

ATCO Gas and Pipelines Ltd. v. Energy and Utilities Board (Alta.), [2006] 1 S.C.R. 140; 344 N.R. 293; 380 A.R. 1; 363 W.A.C. 1; 2006 SCC 4, refd to. [para. 100, footnote 86].

R. v. Henry (D.B.) et al., [2005] 3 S.C.R. 609; 342 N.R. 259; 376 A.R. 1; 360 W.A.C. 1; 219 B.C.A.C. 1; 361 W.A.C. 1; 2005 SCC 76, refd to. [para. 112, footnote 94].

R. v. Hayden (P.A.) (1997), 200 A.R. 279; 146 W.A.C. 279, refd to. [para. 118, footnote 97].

Murphy v. Welsh (1991), 50 O.A.C. 246; 81 D.L.R.(4th) 475 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 120, footnote 98].

Thomson v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Tribunal (N.S.) et al. (2002), 205 N.S.R.(2d) 55; 643 A.P.R. 55; 2002 NSCA 58, refd to. [para. 120, footnote 98].

R. v. J.L.M.A. (2010), 499 A.R. 1; 514 W.A.C. 1; 264 C.C.C.(3d) 134 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 120, footnote 98].

R. v. Arcand - see R. v. J.L.M.A.

R. v. Nystrom, 2005 CMAC 7, refd to. [para. 120, footnote 99].

R. v. Teskey (L.M.), [2007] 2 S.C.R. 267; 364 N.R. 164; 412 A.R. 361; 404 W.A.C. 361; 2007 SCC 25, refd to. [para. 130, footnote 106].

Cojocaru v. British Columbia Women's Hospital and Health Center et al., [2013] 2 S.C.R. 357; 445 N.R. 138; 336 B.C.A.C. 1; 574 W.A.C. 1; 2013 SCC 30, refd to. [para. 130, footnote 106].

R. v. Larouche, 2012 CM 3023, refd to. [para. 135, footnote 110].

R. v. Larouche, 2012 CM 3009, refd to. [para. 142, footnote 111].

R. v. Côté (A.), [2011] 3 S.C.R. 215; 421 N.R. 112; 2011 SCC 46, refd to. [para. 144, footnote 112].

R. v. Cole (R.) et al., [2012] 3 S.C.R. 34; 436 N.R. 102; 297 O.A.C. 1; 2012 SCC 53, refd to. [para. 145, footnote 113].

R. v. Grant (D.), [2009] 2 S.C.R. 353; 391 N.R. 1; 253 O.A.C. 124; 2009 SCC 32, refd to. [para. 148, footnote 114].

R. v. Vu (T.L.), [2013] 3 S.C.R. 657; 451 N.R. 199; 345 B.C.A.C. 155; 589 W.A.C. 155; 2013 SCC 60, refd to. [para. 152, footnote 116].

R. v. Harrison (B.), [2009] 2 S.C.R. 494; 391 N.R. 147; 253 O.A.C. 358; 2009 SCC 34, refd to. [para. 155, footnote 118].

R. v. Keough (J.A.) (2011), 501 A.R. 26; 267 C.C.C.(3d) 193; 2011 ABQB 48, refd to. [para. 160, footnote 119].

R. v. Kokesch, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 3; 121 N.R. 161, refd to. [para. 169, footnote 121].

R. v. Buhay (M.A.), [2003] 1 S.C.R. 631; 305 N.R. 158; 177 Man.R.(2d) 72; 304 W.A.C. 72; 2003 SCC 30, refd to. [para. 171, footnote 125].

R. v. Mann (P.H.), [2004] 3 S.C.R. 59; 324 N.R. 215; 187 Man.R.(2d) 1; 330 W.A.C. 1; 2004 SCC 52, refd to. [para. 171, footnote 126].

R. v. Aucoin (B.D.), [2012] 3 S.C.R. 408; 437 N.R. 1; 324 N.S.R.(2d) 1; 1029 A.P.R. 1; 2012 SCC 66, refd to. [para. 174, footnote 127].

R. v. Sanelli, Duarte and Fasciano, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 30; 103 N.R. 86; 37 O.A.C. 322, refd to. [para. 175, footnote 129].

R. v. Rocha (J.) (2012), 296 O.A.C. 357; 292 C.C.C.(3d) 325 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 176, footnote 130].

R. v. Dombrowski (1985), 37 Sask.R. 259; 18 C.C.C.(3d) 164 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 178, footnote 132].

R. v. U.P.M., [2010] 1 S.C.R. 253; 399 N.R. 200; 346 Sask.R. 1; 477 W.A.C. 1; 2010 SCC 8, refd to. [para. 180, footnote 133].

R. v. Morelli - see R. v. U.P.M.

Restaurant Le Clémenceau Inc. v. Drouin, J., et al., [1987] 1 S.C.R. 706; 77 N.R. 72, refd to [para. 180, footnote 134].

R. v. Pastro (1988), 66 Sask.R. 241; 42 C.C.C.(3d) 485 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 188, footnote 141].

R. v. Boudreau-Fontaine, 2010 QCCA 1108, refd to. [para. 212, footnote 154].

Statutes Noticed:

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982, sect. 7, sect. 11(f) [para. 11].

Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, sect. 162(1), sect. 162(2) [para. 154].

National Defence Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. N-5, sect. 130(1)(a) [para. 10].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Barak, Aharon, Proportionality: Constitutional Rights and Their Limitations (2012), pp. 175 to 210 [para. 56, footnote 46].

Beaudoin, Gérald-A. and Tarnopolsky, Walter S., Charte canadienne des droits et libertés (1982), pp. 459 [para. 52, footnote 40]; 473 [para. 58, footnote 49].

Béliveau, Pierre, and Vauclair, Martin, Traité général de preuve et de procédure pénales (20th Ed. 2013), pp. 296, 297, para. 687 [para. 181, footnote 135].

Canada, Annual Reports of the Judge Advocate General to the Minister of National Defence on the Administration of Military Justice in the Canadian Forces, 2007-2008 (2008-2009), generally [para. 131, footnote 108].

Canada, Annual Reports of the Judge Advocate General to the Minister of National Defence on the Administration of Military Justice in the Canadian Forces, 2008-2009 (2009-2010), generally [para. 131, footnote 108].

Canada, Annual Reports of the Judge Advocate General to the Minister of National Defence on the Administration of Military Justice in the Canadian Forces, 2009-2010 (2010-2011), generally [para. 131, footnote 108].

Canada, Annual Reports of the Judge Advocate General to the Minister of National Defence on the Administration of Military Justice in the Canadian Forces, 2010-2011 (2010-2011), generally [para. 131, footnote 108].

Canada, Annual Report of the Judge Advocate General to the Minister of National Defence on the Administration of Military Justice in the Canadian Forces, Annex: Statistics on Military Justice, (2010-2011), p. 23 [para. 131, footnote 107].

Cormier, Patrick, La Justice militaire canadienne: le procès sommaire est-il-conforme à l'article ll(d) de la Charte canadienne des droits et libertés? (2000), 45 McGill L.J. 209, generally [para. 127, footnote 103].

Côté, Pierre-Andre and Devinat, Mathieu, The Interpretation of Legislation in Canada (4th Ed 2011), p. 624 [para. 100, footnote 86].

Halsbury's Laws of Canada, Mental Health, Military, Mines and Minerals (1st Ed. 2011), pp. 397 [para. 106, footnote 90]; 424 to 429 [para. 126, footnote 102].

Heard, Andrew D., Military Law and the Charter of Rights (1987-1988), 11 Dalhousie L.J. 514, pp. 532, 533 [paras. 51, 92, footnotes 38, 75].

Fidell, E.R., and Sullivan, D.H., Evolving Military Justice (2002), pp. 239 [paras. 91, 93, footnotes 74, 77]; 240 to 245 [para. 91, footnote 74].

Ho, Rubsun, A World That Has Walls: A Charter Analysis of Military Tribunals (1996), 54 U.T. Fac. L. Rev. 149, generally [para. 45, footnote 32]; pp. 152, 153 [para. 51, footnote 38].

Hogg, Peter W., Canada Act 1982 Annotated, generally [para. 52, footnote 39]; p. 42 [para. 53, footnote 42].

Hogg, Peter W., Constitutional Law of Canada, (2nd Ed. 1985), pp. 774, fn. 193 [para. 54, footnote 43]; 794 [para. 56, footnote 46].

Hogg, Peter W., Constitutional Law of Canada (5th Ed.) (2013 Looseleaf Update, Release 1), vol. 2, p. 51-30, fn. 143 [para. 55, footnote 53].

Hutchison, Scott, Canadian Search Warrant Manual 2005: A Guide to Legal and Practical Issues Associated with Judicial Pre-Authorization of Investigative Techniques (2nd Ed. 2004), p. 236 [para. 177, footnote 131].

Lamer, Antonio, The First Independent Review by the Right Honourable Antonio Lamer P.C., C.C., C.D., of the provisions and operations of Bill-C-25, An Act to Amend the National Defence Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts as required under s. 96 of Statutes of Canada (1998), c. 35 [para. 95, footnote 79].

Lesage, Patrick J., Report of the Second Independent Review Authority to The Honourable Peter G. MacKay, Minister of National Defence (2011), generally [para. 96, footnote 81].

Lunau, Ronald D., Military Tribunals Under the Charter (1992), 2 N.J.C.L. 197, generally [para. 45, footnote 32]; pp. 200 to 209 [para. 51, footnote 38].

Manning, Morris and Sankoff, Peter, Manning, Mewett & Sankof: Criminal Law, (4th Ed. 2009), p. 932 [para. 160, footnote 119].

McDonald, R. Arthur, Canada's Military Lawyers (2002), p. 120 [para. 51, footnote 38].

McNairn, David, A Military Justice Primer, Part I (2000), 43 Crim. L. Q. 243, p. 262, fn. 81 [para. 129, footnote 105].

McNairn, David, A Military Justice Primer, Part II (2000), 43 Crim. L. Q. 375, p. 382 [para. 106, footnote 90].

McNairn, David, Introduction au système de justice militaire (2002), 7 Can. Crim. L. Rev. 299, p. 301 [para. 110, footnote 92].

Morel, Andrë, Certain Guarantees of Criminal Procedure, in Tarnopolsky, Walter S., and Beaudoin, Gérald-A., The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms-Commentary (1982), pp. 367 [para. 52, footnote 40] 376 [para. 58, footnote 49].

Morel, André, Les garanties en matière de procédure et de peines, in Beaudoin, Gérald-A. and Tarnopolsky, Walter S., Charte canadienne des droits et libertés (1982), pp. 459 [para. 52, footnote 40]; 473 [para. 58, footnote 49].

Penney, Steven, Rondinelli, Vincenzo and Stribopoulos, James, Criminal Procedure in Canada (2011), § 10.110-10.114 [para. 181, footnote 135].

Pitzul, Jerry S.T., and Maguire, John C., A Perspective on Canada's Code of Service Discipline (2002), 52 A.F.L. Rev. 1, p. 8 [para. 93, footnote 77].

Pitzul, Jerry S.T., and Maguire, John C., A Perspective on Canada's Code of Service Discipline, in Fidell, E.R., and Sullivan, D.H., Evolving Military Justice (2002), pp. 239 [paras. 91, 93, footnotes 74, 77]; 240 to 245 [para. 91, footnote 74].

Shaw, Erin, and Valiquet, Dominique, Legislative Summary of Bill C-15: An act to Amend the National Defence Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, (2012), (Revised May 2, 2013), pp. 2 to 8 [para. 95, footnote 80].

Sullivan, Ruth, Sullivan on the Construction of Statutes (5th Ed. 2008), p. 205 [para. 100, footnote 86].

Tarnopolsky, Walter S., and Beaudoin, Gérald-A., The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms-Commentary (1982), pp. 367 [para. 52, footnote 40]; 376 [para. 58, footnote 49].

Tarnopolsky, Walter S., The New Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms as Compared and Contrasted with the American Bill of Rights (1983), 5 Hum. Rts. Q. 5, p. 244, fn. 89 [para. 52, footnote 41].

Walker, Janet, Military Justice: From Oxymoron to Aspiration (1994), 32 Osgoode Hall L.J. 1, pp. 13, 14, fn. 44 [para. 89, foofnote 73].

Counsel:

Lieutenant-Commander Mark Létourneau and Lieutenant-Colonel Jean-Bruno Cloutier, for the appellant;

Commander Martin Pelletier, for the respondent.

Solicitors of Record:

Defence Counsel Services, Gatineau, Quebec, for the appellant;

Deputy Director of Military Prosecutions, Ottawa, Ontario, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard  on  November 8, 2013, and January 24, 2014 before Cournoyer, Boivin and Doyon, JJ.A., of the Court Martial Appeal Court. The following decision was delivered by Cournoyer, J.A., on April 30, 2014.