summary prepared by the Registrar:
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms – Whether s. 130(1)(a) of the National Defence Act violates s. 7 and s. 11(f) of the Charter – Whether the Court Martial Appeal Court erred in finding that the military nexus doctrine applies to s. 130(1)(a) of the National Defence Act – Whether s. 130(1)(a) of the National Defence Act is constitutional – Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, ss. 7 and 11(f) – Constitution Act, 1982, s. 52 – Constitution Act, 1867, s. 91(7).
The applicant Moriarity was a Cadet Instructor Cadre officer. While in a position of trust and authority with respect to cadets he interacted with, he engaged in inappropriate sexual relationships with two cadets. He was charged with four Criminal Code offences: two offences relating to sexual exploitation contrary to s. 153, one offence for sexual assault contrary to s. 271 and one offence for invitation to sexual touching contrary to s. 152.
The applicant Hannah was a member of the Canadian Forces and a student at the Canadian Forces Base Gagetown. He purchased and delivered a controlled substance to another engineering candidate and the drugs were found in that student’s quarters on the base. He was charged with trafficking of a substance included in Schedule IV contrary to s. 5(1) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and unlawful selling of a substance containing a drug included in Schedule F contrary to the Food and Drug Regulations and Food and Drugs Act.
The applicants confessed and made admissions but challenged the constitutionality of s. 130(1)(a) of the National Defence Act.For an earlier post about the decision of the Court Martial Appeal Court, 2014 CMAC 1, click here.
Post a Comment
Comments are subject to moderation and must be submitted under your real name. Anonymous comments will not be posted (even though the form seems to permit them).