4 total
The court declined to impose an adult sentence on a youth convicted of second-degree murder, finding the Crown failed to rebut the presumption of diminished moral blameworthiness.
A 17-year-old youth was convicted of second-degree murder for shooting a taxi driver multiple times without apparent motive, and of firearm offences related to a shooting incident three weeks prior.
The Crown sought an adult sentence.
The sentencing judge applied the two-stage test under s. 72(1) of the Youth Criminal Justice Act as clarified by the Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. I.M. and R. v. S.B. At stage one, the judge found the Crown failed to rebut the presumption of diminished moral blameworthiness beyond a reasonable doubt, considering the offender's intellectual disability in the mild range, complex trauma, disadvantaged background, impulsivity, and demonstrated capacity for rehabilitation while in custody.
At stage two, the judge imposed the maximum youth sentence of seven years custody followed by conditional supervision under an Intensive Rehabilitative Custody and Supervision order, with concurrent one-year sentences for the firearm offences.
The court imposed a youth sentence of two years probation for a young offender convicted of aggravated assault, finding the presumption of diminished moral blameworthiness was not rebutted.
A 16-year-old youth pleaded guilty to aggravated assault after shooting and partially paralyzing a victim in downtown Toronto.
The Crown sought an adult sentence of 8-10 years, while the defence sought a youth sentence with time served.
The court applied the two-stage test under s. 72(1) of the Youth Criminal Justice Act (YCJA).
At stage one, the court found the presumption of diminished moral blameworthiness was not rebutted beyond a reasonable doubt, considering the youth's significant trauma, intergenerational Indigenous trauma, impulsive nature of the offence, substance abuse issues, and remarkable rehabilitation progress during 3 years 9.5 months of pre-trial custody.
At stage two, the court found a youth sentence would hold the youth accountable.
The court imposed a two-year probation order with intensive conditions including the Intensive Support and Supervision Program (ISSP), curfew, counselling, community service, and ancillary orders including a lifetime weapons prohibition.
A young offender convicted of violent offences received probation instead of further custody.
K.S., a young person, was sentenced after being found guilty of common assault, aggravated assault, assault with a weapon, and assisting Jacob A. to escape.
She was acquitted of second-degree murder.
The court considered whether the gateway to custody was open and if further custody was warranted, given her 242 days in secure detention.
Based on psychological and presentence reports indicating low risk of reoffending and positive trajectory, the court imposed a 3-year probation order with specific conditions, a 2-year weapons prohibition, and a DNA order, declining further incarceration.
A young offender received a 7-year adult sentence for violent, well-planned jewellery store robberies.
R.D., a 16-year-old, pleaded guilty to 10 counts related to three jewellery store robberies and one attempted robbery.
The Crown applied for an adult sentence under Section 64(1) of the Youth Criminal Justice Act, arguing that the presumption of diminished moral blameworthiness was rebutted and a youth sentence would not sufficiently hold R.D. accountable.
The defence sought the maximum youth sentence of three years.
The court found that R.D. demonstrated sufficient maturity at the time of the offences, which were well-planned and violent, and that a youth sentence would not be sufficient for accountability.
R.D. was sentenced as an adult to a global term of 7 years imprisonment, less credit for pre-sentence custody.
