WARNING
THIS IS AN APPEAL UNDER THE
YOUTH CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT
AND IS SUBJECT TO:
(1) Subject to this section, no person shall publish the name of a young person, or any other information related to a young person, if it would identify the young person as a young person dealt with under this Act…
(1) Subject to this section, no person shall publish the name of a child or young person, or any other information related to a child or a young person, if it would identify the child or young person as having been a victim of, or as having appeared as a witness in connection with, an offence committed or alleged to have been committed by a young person…
(1) Every person who contravenes subsection 110(1) (identity of offender not to be published), 111(1) (identity of victim or witness not to be published), 118(1) (no access to records unless authorized) or 128(3) (disposal of R.C.M.P. records) or section 129 (no subsequent disclosure) of this Act, or subsection 38(1) (identity not to be published), (1.12) (no subsequent disclosure), (1.14) (no subsequent disclosure by school) or (1.15) (information to be kept separate), 45(2) (destruction of records) or 46(1) (prohibition against disclosure) of the Young Offenders Act, chapter Y-1 of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1985,
(a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or
(b) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.
DATE: 20061004
DOCKET: C45089
COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO
RE:
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN (Respondent) – and – C. R. (Y.C.J.A.) (Appellant)
BEFORE:
MACPHERSON, LANG and MACFARLAND JJ.A.
COUNSEL:
Michael Davies
for the appellant
Michelle Campbell
for the respondent
HEARD & ENDORSED:
October 2, 2006
On appeal from the disposition imposed on January 5, 2006 by Justice John D.G. Waugh of the Ontario Court of Justice.
A P P E A L B O O K E N D O R S E M E N T
[1] The trial judge provided comprehensive reasons for sentencing all five persons involved in this home invasion assault.
[2] With respect to the other four perpetrators, the judge explicitly considered both aggravating and mitigating circumstances before imposing sentences.
[3] Unfortunately, when he turned to the appellant’s case several weeks later, he set out in some detail the aggravating circumstances, but was silent about the potential mitigating circumstances. There is no duty on a trial judge to mention all the factors he is considering when imposing a sentence. However, in a case where the trial judge deals fully with the issue of mitigating circumstances for four co‑accused, his complete silence on this issue with respect to the appellant constitutes an error in our view.
[4] This is especially so because there were some strong mitigating circumstances in relation to the appellant – for example, the fact that she was on bail for 17 months before sentencing and that she did not breach the very onerous conditions of her bail (which amounted to house arrest), and the fact that, by the time of the sentence, she was living in a stable home environment (her grandparents’ home) really for the first time in her young and difficult life.
[5] We would allow the appeal. We received fresh evidence to the effect that the appellant continues to live with her grandparents and is now three months pregnant. In light of these factors, coupled with the fact that she has served half of her secure custody (80 of 160 days), we would impose a sentence of time served. The probation order and other non‑custodial orders stand.