In an unprecedented move that has sparked widespread criticism, the federal government is using national security concerns to withhold information in a court case involving alleged intimate partner violence within the Canadian military. This controversial decision has ignited a fierce debate about transparency, accountability, and the rights of victims in Canada’s armed forces.
The case centers around a woman who alleges she was subjected to physical and psychological abuse by her former partner, a member of the Canadian Armed Forces. Her attempts to access critical information have been repeatedly stonewalled by government officials who claim that releasing such details could compromise national security operations.
“This is a deeply troubling precedent,” says Elaine Craig, a Dalhousie University law professor specializing in sexual assault law. “When the government invokes national security to potentially shield perpetrators of intimate partner violence, it sends a chilling message to victims within military communities.”
The woman, whose identity remains protected, has been seeking records related to her former partner’s military service and disciplinary history—information her legal team argues is vital to establishing a pattern of behavior and ensuring her safety. Government lawyers, however, have filed multiple applications to block these requests under Section 38 of the Canada Evidence Act, which allows for the suppression of information that could be injurious to international relations, national defense, or security.
Military justice experts point out that this appears to be the first known instance where national security claims have been used in a domestic violence case involving military personnel. The move has drawn sharp criticism from victim advocacy groups across Canada.
Maya Roy, CEO of YWCA Canada, expressed concern about the broader implications: “When systems prioritize institutional protection over victim safety, we create dangerous environments where abuse can flourish. This case exemplifies why many women in military families hesitate to come forward.”
The controversy emerges against a backdrop of ongoing efforts to address sexual misconduct and gender-based violence within Canada’s military. A recent Statistics Canada report revealed that 46% of women in the Canadian Armed Forces have experienced some form of harassment, with intimate partner violence rates significantly higher in military families compared to civilian households.
Defense Minister Bill Blair has defended the government’s position, stating: “We take all allegations of intimate partner violence extremely seriously, but we must also safeguard information that could compromise operational security or place personnel at risk.” However, he declined to explain how domestic violence case records could specifically threaten national security.
Opposition critics have been quick to condemn the government’s approach. NDP defense critic Lindsay Mathyssen characterized it as “institutional protection masquerading as national security,” while Conservative public safety critic Raquel Dancho demanded greater transparency and accountability in military politics.
Legal experts suggest this case highlights the tension between necessary security protocols and the rights of victims. Former military judge Colonel Michel Drapeau notes, “There are legitimate national security concerns in military contexts, but they should never be weaponized to obstruct justice in cases of alleged abuse. The government must find a balance that protects both security interests and victims’ rights.”
As this case proceeds through the courts, it raises profound questions about power dynamics within military institutions and the extent to which national security claims should shield information in cases of alleged abuse. Can we truly claim to protect our nation if we fail to protect those who suffer violence within the very institutions tasked with our defense?
