Martine Di Sabatino

This decision clarifies the interpretation of "at trial" under section 25(4) of the Youth Criminal Justice Act (YCJA), holding that a young person is considered "at trial" from the moment they decide to contest charges, including during the pre-trial or case management phase, without requiring formal arraignment or plea.

The court emphasized the broad statutory right to counsel throughout all stages of proceedings, consistent with Parliament’s intent and international law commitments such as the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.

The decision also recommends procedural reforms to allow YCJA section 25(4) applications to be submitted electronically and decided without formal hearings when uncontested, to conserve judicial resources and reduce burdens on vulnerable youth.

Following a sexual assault conviction, the Crown sought to sentence the accused in absentia after he absconded.

The court, having previously erred in not revoking bail, determined that the accused had voluntarily absented himself to avoid consequences.

While acknowledging the need for sufficient information for a fit sentence, the court found enough information available from trial evidence and a previous presentence report.

The court granted a brief adjournment to allow defence counsel to follow up on information and make a final contact attempt, but confirmed the sentencing would proceed on the adjourned date regardless of the accused's presence.

An arrest warrant was issued.

The appellant, Jordan Osborne, appealed his first-degree murder conviction on two grounds: the voluntariness of his police statement and alleged abuse of process by the Crown.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's finding that the police statement was voluntary, concluding that no implicit inducement or misrepresentation rendered it involuntary, and that the confession was made due to the strength of the case.

The court also dismissed the abuse of process argument, finding no inconsistency in the Crown's position at trial compared to a co-accused's guilty plea, and no compromise to trial fairness or judicial integrity.

The defendant was charged with unauthorized possession of firearms.

He brought a Charter application seeking to exclude the firearms from evidence, alleging a violation of his s. 8 right against unreasonable search or seizure.

The firearms were seized by an OPP officer from the defendant's vehicle after a motor vehicle accident, based on information from fire personnel and public safety concerns regarding the security of the firearms at a tow yard.

The court applied the two-step Waterfield test, finding that the officer acted within his common law and statutory duties to protect life and property and prevent crime, and that the seizure was reasonably necessary in the circumstances.

Therefore, no s. 8 violation occurred.

In the alternative, the court conducted a Grant analysis and concluded that even if there were a breach, the evidence would be admissible due to the reduced expectation of privacy in a damaged vehicle, the minimal intrusiveness of the seizure, and the officer's good faith.

The firearms were admitted into evidence, and the defendant was found guilty.

The Crown applied under s. 715.1 of the Criminal Code to admit a video statement of a child complainant (K.B.) in a sexual assault trial.

The respondent opposed, arguing the statement was not made "within a reasonable time" (5.5 years after alleged offences).

The court considered the circumstances, including the complainants' young age at the time of disclosure, their mother's initial disbelief, and prior abuse by a sibling.

The court found the delay reasonable given the context of child sexual abuse and that the admission would not interfere with the proper administration of justice or the accused's ability to make full answer and defence.

The application was allowed.