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(1) Every person who contravenes subsection 110(1) (identity of offender not to be published), 111(1) (identity of victim or witness not to be published), 118(1) (no access to records unless authorized) or 128(3) (disposal of R.C.M.P. records) or section 129 (no subsequent disclosure) of this Act, or subsection 38(1) (identity not to be published), (1.12) (no subsequent disclosure), (1.14) (no subsequent disclosure by school) or (1.15) (information to be kept separate), 45(2) (destruction of records) or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: 20060118
DOCKET: C42547
COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO
RE:
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN (Respondent) – and – B., T. (A Young Person) (Appellant)
BEFORE:
LASKIN, GILLESE and MACFARLAND JJ.A.
COUNSEL:
P. Andras Schreck and Jennifer Trehearne
for the appellant
Shelly Hallett
for the respondent
HEARD & RELEASED ORALLY:
December 16, 2005
On appeal from the order of Justice Douglas B. Maund of the Ontario Court of Justice, refusing transfer to Youth Court pursuant to s. 16(9) of the Young Offenders Act, dated February 27, 2004.
E N D O R S E M E N T
[1] The application judge carefully considered all the evidence and made each of the legislated determinations before concluding as follows:
I do not agree that the principle of protection of the public, or danger to the public, should be narrowly construed. T.B. was assessed by Dr. Klassen as a low risk for serious violence but with a higher violence risk in certain circumstances. She is also generally at a high risk to commit other criminal acts. Given her involvement in this serious offence, her conduct and personal history, as well as her assessed risk potential, I have concluded that T.B. does constitute a danger to the public….
[2] We share the application judge’s evaluation of the merits of the application. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
“John Laskin J.A.”
“E. E. Gillese J.A.”
“J. MacFarland J.A.”