Master-Corporal Michael Spence, a member of Joint Task Force 2, pleaded guilty on Wednesday to assault and possession of illegal ammunition magazines.Sean Kilpatrick/The Canadian Press
The federal Justice Department is facing criticism from victims’ rights advocates and legal experts who say it set a worrisome precedent and undermined progress on intimate partner violence by invoking national security in the case of a violent assault by an elite Canadian soldier on his spouse.
The Globe and Mail reported Friday that the Justice Department – at the urging of the Canadian Armed Forces – invoked Section 38 of the Canada Evidence Act, a rarely used provision that restricts disclosure of national security matters and is typically used in terrorism cases and to protect classified information.
The case involved Master-Corporal Michael Spence, a member of Joint Task Force 2, an elite special-forces unit that carries out top-secret missions around the world.
Mr. Spence pleaded guilty on Wednesday to assault and possession of illegal ammunition magazines. He received 36 months of probation after a plea deal that saw more serious charges of aggravated assault, choking and assault with bodily harm dropped. He was first charged in 2023.
The victim in the case, Brittany Makort, and her lawyer accuse the federal government of using the law to avoid the embarrassment of the public knowing that an elite soldier had violently attacked his spouse.
She was prevented from discussing anything to do with her estranged partner’s military career and could not mention that he was a member of JTF2. Government lawyers provided an 85-page document that detailed matters she could not talk about in court. That document is not public and The Globe has not viewed it.
JTF2 is a highly specialized unit of the Canadian Armed Forces whose members receive lethal training in hand-to-hand combat and weapons.
“My biggest concern is the potential precedent, aside from the outrage about the incident, that this sets for other people who say serve in JTF2,“ said retired Colonel Michel Drapeau, a lawyer specializing in military affairs. “Some of them may assume that this gives them a legal precedent because their job is so important and they have a licence to do what they want.”
Neither the Justice Department nor National Defence would give Ms. Makort or her lawyer the reason for invoking Section 38.
National Defence spokesperson Andrée-Anne Poulin would only say the request for Section 38 came from Canadian Forces Intelligence Command, which had concerns about “some of the information in court documents.”
Mr. Drapeau said military leadership should not be acting to protect an elite soldier if they fail to demonstrate a high degree of self-discipline.
“I am surprised that DND and military command intervened to say that this individual’s job is so important to national security, based on what he does, that he should be afforded some leeway,” Mr. Drapeau said. “This guy knows how to inflict harm because that is his job.”
Retired Major Donna Van Leusden, who works with battered military spouses and sexual-trauma victims, said the government is sending the signal that it used national security to protect the reputation of JTF2.
“I understand the need for having security around a unit like JTF2, but the fact it is being used to shield abusers is deeply offensive and reprehensible,” she said.
Ms. Van Leusden said any member of the military, but particularly someone with the dangerous skills of a JTF2 soldier, should be dismissed if they can’t control their anger.
“Somebody who is not able to control themselves and beats their spouse, causing grievous bodily harm, should not be deemed a good soldier,” she said.
Ms. Makort was allowed to read a victim-impact statement during the sentencing hearing on Wednesday, but she told the court she was being prevented from speaking fully about what had happened. She said Mr. Spence’s attack left her with severe injuries to her face and jaw, as well as traumatic brain injury.
“They directed that key portions of my evidence be redacted and not spoken in court. In doing so, they have effectively silenced me and compromised the court’s essential role in fully and fairly assessing the evidence to uphold justice,” she told the court as she also criticized the simple assault plea deal worked out between the Crown and Mr. Spence’s legal counsel. “What has been labelled an ‘assault’ left me with catastrophic injuries.”
Jennifer Dunn, executive director of the London Abused Women’s Centre, said what happened to Ms. Makort is a classic example of how institutions like the military protect male abusers and not victims.
“When we see stuff like this, women ask themselves why would I bother to report at all,” she said. “It completely minimizes the seriousness of incident partner violence.”