{"id":3095,"date":"2019-02-14T17:24:01","date_gmt":"2019-02-14T17:24:01","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.ruleoflaw.ca\/?p=3095"},"modified":"2019-02-15T03:52:53","modified_gmt":"2019-02-15T03:52:53","slug":"military-justice-and-stare-decisis-arl-returns-to-the-scc","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.ruleoflaw.ca\/military-justice-and-stare-decisis-arl-returns-to-the-scc\/","title":{"rendered":"Military Justice and Stare Decisis: ARL Returns to the SCC"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

For the third time in little more than a year, the Supreme Court of Canada has granted Advocates for the Rule of Law leave to intervene to assist the Court in addressing a significant public law issue. This time, ARL will make submissions on when intermediate appellate courts may depart from their own binding precedents. This question of horizontal stare decisis<\/em> arises in two military justice appeals, both from judgments of the Court Martial Appeal Court: Master Corporal C.J. Stillman, et al. v. Her Majesty the Queen, et al.<\/em>, and Her Majesty the Queen v. Corporal R.P. Beaudry<\/em>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Stillman <\/em><\/strong>and Beaudry<\/em>,\nin brief<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The appeals concern the\nconstitutionality of s. 130(1)(a) of the National\nDefence Act<\/em>, and specifically whether it violates s. 11(f) of the Charter<\/em>. Section 130(1)(a) provides that, subject to limited exceptions, any act\nor omission \u201cthat \u2026 is punishable under \u2026 the Criminal Code<\/em> or any other Act of Parliament\u201d is an offence that\nmay be tried in the military justice system. Section 11(f) guarantees the right\nto trial by jury for offenses punishable by five years\u2019 imprisonment or a more\nsevere punishment, \u201cexcept in the case of an offence under military law tried\nbefore a military tribunal\u201d. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The\nprincipal issue before the Court Martial Appeal Court in both cases was\nwhether, in the absence of a \u201cmilitary nexus\u201d requirement, s. 130(1)(a)\ncaptures offences that cannot be described as being \u201cunder military law\u201d, and\nthus infringes s. 11(f<\/em>).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Three decisions, two outcomes<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

In\nthe span of just over two years, the Court Martial Appeal Court released three\njudgments on the issue described above. First, in Royes<\/em> (2016), the Court held that the impugned provision did not\ninfringe s. 11(f<\/em>). Less than a year\nlater, in Stillman <\/em>(2017), the Court\nreached the same result unanimously, but only on the basis that they were bound\nby Royes<\/em>. A majority of the\nthree-judge panel in Stillman<\/em> \u201cwould\nnot have reached the same conclusion as the panel in Royes<\/em>\u201d (at para. 31), and offered lengthy obiter<\/em> to explain why. A little over a year later, in Beaudry <\/em>(2018), a majority of a\nmostly-different panel concluded thatit\nwas not bound by either Royes<\/em> or Stillman<\/em>; it held that s. 130(1)(a)\nviolated the Charter<\/em>. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Stillman<\/em> and\nBeaudry<\/em> thus raise the question of\nwhen, if ever, an intermediate appellate court may decline to follow its own\nbinding precedent. This question was dispositive in Stillman<\/em>, and could have been in Beaudry<\/em>. And, as the Stillman<\/em>\nmajority observed, Canada\u2019s various intermediate appellate courts take\ndifferent approaches on this issue; whether a court will depart from one of its\nown prior decisions depends on the jurisdiction.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The\nSupreme Court of Canada now has an opportunity to clarify this crucial area of\nthe law. ARL\u2019s intervention is aimed to assist it in doing so. The appeals are\nscheduled to be heard in Ottawa on March 26, 2019. ARL will be there to make\nbrief oral submissions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

How\nsticky is horizontal stare decisis<\/em>?<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

ARL will make two submissions.\nFirst,<\/em><\/strong>\nARL will argue that horizontal stare\ndecisis<\/em> reflects underlying constitutional constraints on appellate\njudicial decision making, namely: (1) everyone is entitled to equality under\nthe law, and so like cases must be treated alike; and (2) the law must be\ncertain and ascertainable, so that those who are subject to it can order their\naffairs accordingly. To ensure that these aspects of \u201cconstitutionalism and the\nrule of law\u201d (see Reference re Secession\nof Quebec<\/em>, at para. 70) are respected, the common law doctrine of\nhorizontal stare decisis<\/em> must insist\non adherence to binding precedent \u2014 at least in its horizontal form, in\nintermediate appellate courts, in all but exceptional cases. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Second, <\/em><\/strong>ARL will submit\nthat, except where stare decisis<\/em> does\nnot apply, an intermediate appellate court may only depart from its own\nprecedent in rare circumstances. Further, because our country\u2019s courts of\nappeal operate under the same Constitution, the circumstances in which an\nintermediate appellate court may reverse a prior decision should be consistent\nacross jurisdictions. This will require two significant doctrinal developments,\nfor which ARL will advocate:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

  1. ARL will ask the\nCourt to draw a distinction between circumstances in which an intermediate\nappellate court may depart from binding precedent, and circumstances in which\nhorizontal stare decisis<\/em> simply does\nnot apply \u2014 i.e.<\/em>, where there are\nconflicting decisions of the same court, where there is inconsistency with a\ndecision of the Supreme Court of Canada, or where the prior decision was given per incuriam<\/em> or in disregard of binding\nlegal or statutory authority (see Stillman<\/em>,\nat para. 89). ARL will argue, an intermediate appellate court must first\ndetermine whether a prior decision is binding on it. Only if it is will the\ncourt need to decide whether it can or should depart from precedent.<\/li>
  2. ARL will submit\nthat the Court should endorse a common set of factors to guide intermediate\nappellate courts\u2019 determination of whether to depart from binding precedent. To\ndate, each intermediate appellate court has made its own rules in this regard.\nThe Court should even the field, such that precedent is equally binding (or\nnot) everywhere in Canada. ARL will propose a principled framework to\naccomplish this.<\/li><\/ol>\n\n\n\n

    We are hard at work on ARL\u2019s written submissions, which we will file with the Court in early March. Watch this space \u2014 we will post a copy of our factum once it is filed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    <\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Adam Goldenberg\nand Peter Grbac are litigators at McCarthy T\u00e9trault LLP. They are representing\nARL in these appeals.<\/em><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

    For the third time in little more than a year, the Supreme Court of Canada has granted Advocates for the Rule of Law leave to intervene to assist the Court in addressing a significant public law issue. This time, ARL will make submissions on when intermediate appellate courts may depart from their own binding precedents. …<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":5870,"featured_media":1571,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_exactmetrics_skip_tracking":false,"_exactmetrics_sitenote_active":false,"_exactmetrics_sitenote_note":"","_exactmetrics_sitenote_category":0,"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[77,34],"tags":[493,396,492,71,64],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.ruleoflaw.ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3095"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.ruleoflaw.ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.ruleoflaw.ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.ruleoflaw.ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/5870"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.ruleoflaw.ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=3095"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/www.ruleoflaw.ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3095\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":3099,"href":"https:\/\/www.ruleoflaw.ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3095\/revisions\/3099"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.ruleoflaw.ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/1571"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.ruleoflaw.ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3095"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.ruleoflaw.ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3095"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.ruleoflaw.ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3095"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}