WARNING

THIS IS AN APPEAL UNDER THE

YOUNG OFFENDERS ACT

AND IS SUBJECT TO s. 38 OF THE ACT WHICH PROVIDES:

38.(1) Subject to this section, no person shall publish by any means any report

(a) of an offence committed or alleged to have been committed by a young person, unless an order has been made under section 16 with respect thereto, or

(b) of a hearing, adjudication, disposition or appeal concerning a young person who committed or is alleged to have committed an offence

in which the name of the young person, a child or a young person who is a victim of the offence or a child or a young person who appeared as a witness in connection with the offence, or in which any information serving to identify such young person or child, is disclosed.

(2) Every one who contravenes subsection (1), …

(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: 20030626

DOCKET: C39883

COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO

RE: HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN (Respondent) – and M.R. (YOUNG PERSON) (Appellant)

BEFORE: GOUDGE, SIMMONS and GILLESE JJ.A.

COUNSEL: Jane Arnup for the respondent

Tamara Duncan for the appellant

HEARD: June 19, 2003

On appeal from the conviction imposed by Justice R. N. Fournier of the Superior Court of Justice dated August 27, 2002.

E N D O R S E M E N T

[1] The appellant, a young person, was found guilty of assault causing bodily harm (two counts), mischief over $5,000 and failure to comply with a disposition. Disposition for the offences was eighteen months secure custody and six months probation, consecutive to the disposition that the appellant was then serving. At the time of disposition, the appellant was serving a closed custody disposition with a release date of December 2, 2002, which was to be followed by eighteen months probation. The appellant seeks leave to appeal the disposition on the grounds it was excessive.

[2] The Crown concedes that the appeal should be allowed as the disposition was “harsh” and the totality of twenty months of closed custody was “excessive”.

[3] Fresh evidence admitted on consent shows that the appellant is aboriginal and that she has made excellent progress while in the institution. The appellant’s aboriginal heritage had not been taken into consideration at the time of disposition.

[4] In our view, time served is a fit sentence. The appellant has served approximately seven months in secure custody following the completion of her prior period in secure custody. It is our view, as well, that six months probation in addition to the eighteen month probation period already ordered is excessive.

[5] Leave to appeal is allowed, the disposition appeal is granted and the disposition is varied to time served. The six-month probation period is struck.

“S.T. Goudge J.A.”

“J.M. Simmons J.A.”

“E.E. Gillese J.A.”