The applicant, an adult charged with incest and sexual assault, brought a constitutional challenge arguing that his intellectual disability gave him a mental age of 9 to 12, and therefore he should be entitled to the protections of the Youth Criminal Justice Act (YCJA).
The court held that the YCJA unambiguously applies based on chronological age, not mental age.
The court dismissed the Charter challenges, finding that while the YCJA excludes the applicant based on age, it is protected as an ameliorative program under s. 15(2) of the Charter.
The court also found no violation of s. 7, noting that the adult criminal justice system must accommodate the applicant's disability to ensure his procedural rights are protected.
