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(1) Every person who contravenes subsection 110(1) (identity of offender not to be published), 111(1) (identity of victim or witness not to be published), 118(1) (no access to records unless authorized) or 128(3) (disposal of R.C.M.P. records) or section 129 (no subsequent disclosure) of this Act, or subsection 38(1) (identity not to be published), (1.12) (no subsequent disclosure), (1.14) (no subsequent disclosure by school) or (1.15) (information to be kept separate), 45(2) (destruction of records) or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: C45443
COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO
RE:
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN (Respondent) – and – B.L. (A Young Person) (Applicant/Appellant)
BEFORE:
LASKIN, MOLDAVER and JURIANSZ JJ.A.
COUNSEL:
Victor Giourgas
for the appellant
Charmaine Wong
for the respondent
HEARD & ENDORSED:
October 20, 2006
On appeal from sentence imposed by Justice R.J. Richards of the Ontario Court of Justice dated May 10, 2006.
A P P E A L B O O K E N D O R S E M E N T
MOLDAVER and JURIANSZ JJ.A.:
1This was a vicious unprovoked attack by the appellant on another youth who was walking home from school. The appellant was with three other male friends and two females at the time. The appellant continued the attack after the victim had handed over his knapsack and despite the pleas of his two female friends to stop.
2The assault has had devastating consequences on the victim. He has gone from being an “A” student at school to failing grades and the event has left him psychologically scarred. We note as well that this is not the first incident of violence for the appellant. The pre-sentence report refers to several other violent episodes at school which did not result in charges but in discipline by the school authorities.
3In all of the circumstances, we have not been persuaded that the trial judge applied incorrect principles of sentencing or that the sentence is manifestly excessive. Accordingly, while we would grant leave to appeal, we would dismiss the appeal from sentence.
LASKIN J.A. (dissenting):
4I do not agree with my colleagues’ disposition of this appeal. I agree with them on the nature of the offence and its effect on the victim. However, in my view, the record shows that the offence was entirely out of character, that the appellant has shown genuine remorse, and that he has taken steps to address his anger-related problems. Indeed, he has now obviously turned his life around.
5I agree with counsel for the appellant that the trial judge failed to adequately address the key objectives in the YCJA of rehabilitation and reintegration, thus permitting this court to review the sentence. Maintaining a secure custodial disposition would unnecessarily disrupt the appellant’s schooling. The severity of the offence can be appropriately recognized by an open custody disposition. I note that in CN, where the accused viciously attacked another person, this court imposed an open custody term. In my view the offence in CN was more serious and yet this court declined to imposed closed custody.
6Accordingly, I would allow the appeal by converting the closed custody disposition to an open custody disposition.