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(1) Every person who contravenes subsection 110(1) (identity of offender not to be published), 111(1) (identity of victim or witness not to be published), 118(1) (no access to records unless authorized) or 128(3) (disposal of R.C.M.P. records) or section 129 (no subsequent disclosure) of this Act, or subsection 38(1) (identity not to be published), (1.12) (no subsequent disclosure), (1.14) (no subsequent disclosure by school) or (1.15) (information to be kept separate), 45(2) (destruction of records) or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: 20061024
DOCKET: C43294
COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO
RE:
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN (Respondent) v. M.D. (Y.C.J.A.) (Appellant)
BEFORE:
LASKIN, MOLDAVER and JURIANSZ JJ.A.
COUNSEL:
James Foord
for the appellant
Charmaine Wong
for the respondent
HEARD & ENDORSED:
October 20, 2006
On appeal from the disposition imposed on December 3, 2004 by Justice James A. Fontana of the Ontario Court of Justice (Youth Court).
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 gave adequate reasons for his credibility findings. We are satisfied that he applied the principles in W.D. and that he found the appellant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
[2] Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.