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(1) Every person who contravenes subsection 110(1) (identity of offender not to be published), 111(1) (identity of victim or witness not to be published), 118(1) (no access to records unless authorized) or 128(3) (disposal of R.C.M.P. records) or section 129 (no subsequent disclosure) of this Act, or subsection 38(1) (identity not to be published), (1.12) (no subsequent disclosure), (1.14) (no subsequent disclosure by school) or (1.15) (information to be kept separate), 45(2) (destruction of records) or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: 20061019
DOCKET: C45200
COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO
RE:
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN (Respondent) v. M.J. (Y.C.J.A.) (Appellant)
BEFORE:
LASKIN, MOLDAVER and JURIANSZ JJ.A.
COUNSEL:
Michael Davies
for the appellant
Amanda Rubaszek
for the respondent
HEARD & ENDORSED:
October 18, 2006
On appeal from the disposition imposed on March 27, 2006 by Justice Richard Lajoie 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] This was a violent offence and, in our view, the trial judge was justified in imposing a period of custody. However, the trial judge does not appear to have taken into account the 8 days pre-trial custody and the time spent in pre-sentence house arrest.
[2] The Crown acknowledged that the failure to take these into account amounted to an error in principle. Given some credit for this time, we reduce the appellant’s sentence to 3 months open custody and 1½ months supervision.
[3] The terms and conditions of probation remain as imposed by the trial custody.
[4] Leave to appeal sentence is granted and the sentence is varied as set out above.