R. v. Généreux
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| R. v. Généreux | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
 |
|||||||||
| Hearing: June 5, 1991 Judgment: February 13, 1992 |
|||||||||
|
|||||||||
| Court membership | |||||||||
|
Chief Justice: Antonio Lamer |
|||||||||
| Reasons given | |||||||||
| Majority by: Lamer C.J. Joined by: Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory and Iacobucci JJ. Concurrence by: Stevenson J. Joined by: La Forest and McLachlin JJ. Dissent by: L'Heureux‑Dubé J. |
|||||||||
| Laws applied | |||||||||
| R. v. Wigglesworth, [1987] 2 S.C.R. 541; Andrews v. Law Society of British Columbia, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 143 | |||||||||
R. v. Genereux, [1992] 1 S.C.R. 259 is a leading Supreme Court of Canada decision where the Court held that the government had the constitutional right to create a military justice system that existed in parallel to the regular court system. However, that system must comply with the constitutional requirements for judicial independence under section 11(d) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Contents |
[edit] Background
Michel Généreux was a corporal in the Canadian Armed Forces. He was charged with drug possession for the purpose of trafficking in violation of section 4 of the Narcotics Control Act and for desertion in violation of section 88(1) of the National Defence Act.
In the General Court Martial he was convicted for both offences, which was upheld in the Court Martial Appeal Court.
The issue before the Supreme Court was whether the General Court Martial was an independent and impartial tribunal under section 11(d) of the Charter.
[edit] Opinion of the Court
The Court examined the requirements for judicial independence established in Valente v. The Queen [1985]. It was found that the judges on the military court did not have sufficient security of tenure or administrative autonomy, which left them vulnerable to interference from the military and government. Consequently, the Court found that the accused's right to an independent and fair tribunal under section 11(d) of the Charter was violated.
[edit] Aftermath
The decision brought about many changes to the military courts. The government of Canada commission recently retired Chief Justice Brian Dickson to write a report to recommend changes to the courts which were eventually incorporated into the 1998 National Defence Act.
[edit] See also
- List of Supreme Court of Canada cases (Lamer Court)
- Beauregard v. Canada
- Mackeigan v. Hickman
- Provincial Judges Reference
- Therrien (Re)
- Provincial Court Judges' Assn. of New Brunswick v. New Brunswick (Minister of Justice)
