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(1) Every person who contravenes subsection 110(1) (identity of offender not to be published), 111(1) (identity of victim or witness not to be published), 118(1) (no access to records unless authorized) or 128(3) (disposal of R.C.M.P. records) or section 129 (no subsequent disclosure) of this Act, or subsection 38(1) (identity not to be published), (1.12) (no subsequent disclosure), (1.14) (no subsequent disclosure by school) or (1.15) (information to be kept separate), 45(2) (destruction of records) or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.
CITATION: R. v. A.S., 2008 ONCA 279
DATE: 20080415
DOCKET: C46151
COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO
LASKIN, GILLESE JJ.A. and WHALEN J. (ad hoc)
BETWEEN:
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Respondent
and
A.S. (YOUNG PERSON)
Appellant
Terry P. Waltenbury for the appellant
Andreea Baiasu for the respondent
Heard: April 10, 2008
On appeal from the conviction entered on May 5, 2006, by Justice Gérald E. Michel of the Ontario Court of Justice (Youth Court).
APPEAL BOOK ENDORSEMENT
[1] We are not persuaded that the trial judge erred in his assessment of the identification evidence or in his application of W.D. Nor are we persuaded that he materially misapprehended any of the evidence.
[2] Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.