Military Justice System Statistics

The Office of the JAG remains committed to the collection and reporting of accurate and reliable quantitative data on the administration of the military justice system. The 2025/2026 reporting period represents a significant milestone, marking the first full year in which Military Justice at the Unit Level data has been entered into JAIMS by Canadian Armed Forces members. It is also the first reporting period for which data has been directly extracted from JAIMS for the purposes of analysis and reporting.

This transition represents an important evolution in how military justice data is collected, managed, and analyzed. JAIMS facilitates the capture of more comprehensive, precise, and structured information across the lifecycle of cases, thereby enhancing the depth and overall quality of reporting.

As a result of this transition, some distinctions may be observed when comparing data from this reporting period with that of previous years. While the summary hearing process itself remains unchanged, the implementation of JAIMS near the end of the 2024/2025 reporting period, subsequent system enhancements, and the initial period of user familiarization may have contributed to variations in data capture. In addition, some cases initiated during this reporting period were not yet concluded at the time of data extraction and, as such, are not fully represented in the data set for this year.

Summary Hearings

During this reporting period, 595 summary hearings were conducted. This represents approximately a 12% increase over the number of summary hearings conducted during the previous reporting period.^{Footnote 75} 

Figure 3.1 shows the distribution of summary hearings and courts martial held over the reporting period compared with the previous one.

Figure 3.1: Distribution of Proceedings

Figure 3.2 shows the number of summary trials and summary hearings held each reporting period since 2021/2022.

Figure 3.2: Summary Trials and Summary Hearings for the Past Five Reporting Years

Summary Hearings by Organization

In 2025/2026, eight organizations were responsible for nearly 99% of the summary hearings. Figure 3.3 shows the total number of summary hearings held over the reporting period within these organizations (Canadian Army (CA), Royal Canadian Navy (RCN), Royal Canadian Air Force (RCAF), Military Personnel Command (MilPersCom), Canadian Joint Operations Command (CJOC), Canadian Special Operations Forces Command (CANSOFCOM), Vice Chief of Defence Staff (VCDS), Canadian Forces Intelligence Command (CFINTCOM) as well as the combined number for all other organizations.  The distribution of summary hearings across organizations, with the CA accounting for the highest number of hearings (282 or 47%) followed by the RCN (93 or 16%), aligns with the distribution of summary proceedings in previous reporting periods. CJOC recorded a notable increase (82 hearings or 14%), while CANSOFCOM reported 17 summary hearings during the reporting period.^{Footnote 76}

Figure 3.3: Summary Hearings by Organization

Charges Disposed of at Summary Hearing

During the reporting period, 1,009 charges for service infractions were disposed of at summary hearing, representing an approximately 8% increase from the previous reporting period. There were 38 charges disposed of for service infractions in relation to property and information under article 120.02 of the Queen’s Regulations and Orders for the Canadian Forces, accounting for nearly 4% of the total. There were 915 charges disposed of for infractions in relation to military service under article 120.03, accounting for 91% of the total number of charges and 56 charges disposed of for service infractions in relation to drugs and alcohol under article 120.04, accounting for approximately 6% of the total. Figure 3.4 provides the number of charges for each category of service infraction disposed of at summary hearing during the 2024/2025 and 2025/2026 reporting periods. A more detailed list of each infraction disposed of at summary hearing in the last two reporting periods is provided at Annex A.

Figure 3.4: Charges Disposed of at Summary Hearing

Figure 3.5 sets out the breakdown of the charges disposed of at summary hearing for infractions in relation to property and information under article 120.02 during the 2024/2025 and 2025/2026 reporting periods. 

Figure 3.5: Charges Disposed of under QR&O 120.02 (Infractions in Relation to Property and Information)

Of the 38 charges disposed of for infractions in relation to property and information under article 120.02, by far the most common was paragraph 120.02(a) (takes or uses, for other than authorized purposes, non-public property, public property, materiel or government-issued property or damages that property or material), which accounted for approximately 79% of all charges under article 120.02. As a percentage of charges, this represents an increase from the previous reporting period and, in terms of the number of charges, this also marks an increase.

Of the three categories of service infractions, the most frequently charged was service infractions in relation to military service, under article 120.03 of the Queen’s Regulations and Orders for the Canadian Forces. Article 120.03 includes nine individual service infractions, the highest number of the three categories. It also includes the two most common infractions disposed of at summary hearing: paragraph 120.03(f) (without reasonable excuse, fails to attend or is tardy to their place of duty) and paragraph 120.03(i) (otherwise behaves in a manner that adversely affects the discipline, efficiency, or morale of the Canadian Forces).

This reporting period shows a significantly higher rate of use of 120.03 (g) (dresses in a manner or adopts an appearance or demeanour that is inconsistent with Canadian Forces requirements compared to the previous reporting period and, similarly, a lower rate of use of 120.03 (i) (otherwise behaves in a manner that adversely affects the discipline, efficiency, or morale of the Canadian Forces). This may be explained by a more robust understanding by users of the military justice system of the Annex A of the Military Justice at the Unit Level Policy – Elements of the Service Infraction.

Figure 3.6 sets out the breakdown of the charges disposed of at summary hearing for infractions in relation to military service under article 120.03 of the Queen’s Regulations and Orders for the Canadian Forces during the 2024/2025 and 2025/2026 reporting periods. Figures 3.7 and 3.8 show the number of charges under National Defence Act s. 90 and 129 and paragraphs 120.03(f) and 120.03(i) of the Queen’s Regulations and Orders for the Canadian Forces, over the five previous reporting periods.

Figure 3.6: Charges Disposed of under QR&O 120.03 (Infractions in Relation to Military Service)

Figure 3.7: Charges Disposed of under NDA s. 90 and QR&O 120.03(f)

Figure 3.8: Charges Disposed of under NDA s.129 and QR&O 120.03(i)

The total number of charges disposed of during this reporting period for infractions in relation to drugs and alcohol under article 120.04 of the Queen’s Regulations and Orders for the Canadian Forces is very close to the number of charges disposed of during the previous reporting period (56 and 46, respectively). The most commonly charged infraction under this article was paragraph 120.04(c) (introduces, possesses, or consumes an intoxicant contrary to article 19.04 of the Queen’s Regulations and Orders for the Canadian Forces (Intoxicants)), accounting for nearly 43% of all charges under this article. Figure 3.9 sets out the breakdown of the charges disposed of at summary hearing for infractions in relation to drugs and alcohol under article 120.04 of the Queen’s Regulations and Orders for the Canadian Forces during the 2024/2025 and 2025/2026 reporting periods.

Figure 3.9: Charges Disposed of under QR&O 120.04 (Infractions in Relation to Drugs and Alcohol)

Findings at Summary Hearing

During the reporting period, 872 charges resulted in a finding that the alleged service infraction was committed, representing approximately 86% of charges. 115 charges resulted in a finding that the alleged service infraction was not committed, representing nearly 11% of charges. 22 charges were not proceeded with at summary hearing, representing approximately 2% of charges. These percentages are similar to the 2024/2025 reporting period, when 87.66% of charges resulted in a finding that the service infraction had been committed, 9.67% of charges resulted in a finding that the infraction had not been committed, and 2.47% of charges were not proceeded with at summary hearing. The statistics for findings at summary hearing for both the 2024/2025 and the present reporting period are set out at Figure 3.10.

Figure 3.10: Findings at Summary Hearing

Sanctions at Summary Hearing

During this reporting period, deprivation of pay was the most common sanction imposed at summary hearing, imposed 341 times and accounting for approximately 39% of sanctions. This was consistent with the 2024/2025 reporting period, when it also accounted for nearly 39% of sanctions. Extra work and drill was the second most frequently imposed sanction, imposed 286 times and accounting for approximately 34% of sanctions, while confinement to ship or barracks was imposed 145 times and accounted for approximately 17% of sanctions. During the previous reporting period, confinement to ship or barracks accounted for approximately 20% of sanctions imposed, while extra work and drill accounted for approximately 32%. Figure 3.11 shows the relative number and percentage of each type of sanction that was imposed at summary hearing during the 2024/2025 and 2025/2026 reporting periods.

Figure 3.11: Sanctions at Summary Hearing*

*44 cases had no information on sanctions in JAIMS.

Summary Hearings by Rank

During the reporting period, there were a total of 459 summary hearings for junior non-commissioned members (between Private/Aviator (Basic)/Sailor 3rd Class and Master Corporal/Master Sailor) and 58 for senior non-commissioned members (between Sergeant/Petty Officer 2nd Class and Chief Warrant Officer/Chief Petty Officer 1st Class). For officers, there were 12 summary hearings for subordinate officers (officer cadets/naval cadets), 60 hearings for junior officers (between Second Lieutenant/Acting Sub Lieutenant and Captain/Lieutenant (N)), and 6 hearings for senior officers (between Major/Lieutenant Commander and Colonel/Captain(N)). Figure 3.12 sets out the number and percentage of summary hearings organized by the rank of the person alleged to have committed the service infraction.

Figure 3.12: Summary Hearings by Rank

Timeline for Summary Hearings

Summary hearings are intended to allow Canadian Armed Forces units to address misconduct as promptly as possible, while still maintaining a fair process. An essential feature of the summary hearing system is that summary hearings are required to commence within six months of the alleged commission of the service infraction. Delays in addressing disciplinary issues allow problems to persist and adversely impact a unit’s morale and efficiency. In this regard, the summary hearing system appears to be functioning as intended. The average number of days between an alleged infraction and the conclusion of the summary hearing during the reporting period was 106 days. This number may indicate an initial adjustment period following the implementation of JAIMS, as compared to 2024/2025, when the average time between an alleged infraction and the conclusion of a summary hearing was 81 days. In the previous reporting period, there was an average of 56 days between the commission of an alleged service infraction and the laying of charges, and approximately 27 days between the laying of charges and commencement of a summary hearing. In the current reporting period, the number of days had increased to 72 days and 33 days, respectively. Figure 3.13 shows the percentage of cases completed within each tier of elapsed days between the date of an alleged service infraction and the completion of a summary hearing during the 2024/2025 and 2025/2026 reporting periods.

Figure 3.13: Elapsed Days between Alleged Service Infraction and Completion of Summary Hearing by Percentage of Cases

Reviews of Summary Hearings

The review of a summary hearing can be initiated at the request of the member who was found to have committed a service infraction or on the initiative of a review authority. During the 2025/2026 reporting period, there were 24 reviews, representing approximately 4.0% of summary hearings. This is comparable to the 2024/2025 reporting period, when there were 16 reviews, representing approximately 3.0% of summary hearings.

Review authorities for summary hearings can uphold the finding that the member committed the service infraction, quash the finding, or substitute a finding. During this reporting period, review authorities upheld 16 findings, quashed 5 findings, and substituted 2 findings. With respect to sanctions imposed at summary hearings, review authorities mitigated 1 sanction, substituted 4 sanctions, commuted 0 sanction, and remitted 1 sanction. A breakdown of all decisions by review authorities for the 2024/2025 and 2025/2026 reporting periods may be found at Figure 3.14.

Figure 3.14: Decisions of Review Authorities

Language of Summary Hearings

Persons charged with having committed a service infraction have the right for the hearing to be conducted in the official language of their choice. An OCSH must be able to understand the language in which a summary hearing is to be conducted without the assistance of an interpreter. In this reporting period, 482 summary hearings were conducted in English, and 113 summary hearings were conducted in French. These numbers are broadly consistent with the previous reporting period and the proportion of anglophones to francophones in the Canadian Armed Forces which are 76% and 24% respectively. In this reporting period, the proportions of summary hearings were approximately 81% and 19%, respectively. Figure 3.15 shows the total number of summary hearings conducted in English and French for the 2024/2025 and 2025/2026 reporting periods.

Figure 3.15: Language at Summary Hearing

Arrests Reported in JAIMS

In response to recommendation 35 of the IR3, measures were implemented to strengthen the collection and monitoring of military justice data, including information related to arrests. During the 2025/2026 reporting period, no arrests made by military authorities at the unit level were reported in JAIMS. This report does not include data concerning arrests conducted by the Military Police, which are managed through separate information management systems.

Back to Top

Courts Martial

Referrals to the Director of Military Prosecutions

All service offences charges are referred directly to the DMP. During this reporting period, the DMP received a total of 30 new referrals or requests for charges to proceed to trial by court martial, an increase of four cases from the 2024/2025 reporting period. Figure 3.16 shows the number of referrals received by the DMP over the last five reporting periods.

Figure 3.16: Referrals to the Director of Military Prosecutions

Cases Preferred by the Director of Military Prosecutions

During this reporting period, the DMP proceeded with charges or preferred charges in 29 cases for trial by court martial. There was one case where the DMP did not proceed with or prefer any charges. Figure 3.17 illustrates the number of cases preferred by the DMP and the number of files where no charges were preferred over the past five reporting periods.

Figure 3.17: Cases Preferred by the Director of Military Prosecutions

Number of Courts Martial

During this reporting period, 20 courts martial were conducted, a decrease from the 32 courts martial held during the previous reporting period. Of the 20 courts martial, seven involved contested trials, 13 were guilty pleas with joint submissions on sentencing. The most common service offence disposed of at court martial during this reporting period was conduct to the prejudice of good order and discipline under section 129 of the National Defence Act, which accounted for over 17% of offences. This is a decrease from the previous reporting period when conduct to the prejudice of good order and discipline charges accounted for 19.72% of service offences. Figure 3.18 sets out the number of courts martial for the past five reporting periods. Annex B contains a summary of all service offences disposed of at court martial in the last two reporting periods.

Figure 3.18: Number of Courts Martial

Dispositions of Cases at Court Martial

Of the 20 completed courts martial during this reporting period, 17 resulted in a finding of guilty on at least one charge, three resulted in a finding of not guilty on all charges or a stay of proceedings. Figure 3.19 shows the disposition of cases over the past five reporting periods.

Figure 3.19: Disposition of Cases at Court Martial

Punishments at Court Martial

The most common punishments imposed at court martial are fines, followed by reprimands. Figure 3.20 breaks down the punishments imposed by court martial over the last five reporting periods.

Figure 3.20: Punishments at Court Martial