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(1) Every person who contravenes subsection 110(1) (identity of offender not to be published), 111(1) (identity of victim or witness not to be published), 118(1) (no access to records unless authorized) or 128(3) (disposal of R.C.M.P. records) or section 129 (no subsequent disclosure) of this Act, or subsection 38(1) (identity not to be published), (1.12) (no subsequent disclosure), (1.14) (no subsequent disclosure by school) or (1.15) (information to be kept separate), 45(2) (destruction of records) or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. N.G., 2008 ONCA 330
DATE: 20080430
DOCKET: C47012
COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO
LASKIN, SIMMONS and LANG JJ.A.
BETWEEN:
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Appellant
and
N.G. (A young Person)
Respondent
Lorna Bolton for the appellant
Leslie Maunder for the respondent
Heard and endorsed April 25, 2008
On appeal from sentence imposed by Justice G. S. Gage of the Ontario Court of Justice (Youth Court) dated March 26, 2007.
APPEAL BOOK ENDORSEMENT
[1] The Crown is not seeking a custodial disposition and therefore concedes that the appeal is moot. Thus, the issue is whether it is in the public interest that we should nonetheless hear the appeal. In our view it is not in the public interest to hear this appeal. The appeal is largely fact driven and is not one of those “exceptional cases” where we should exercise our discretion to hear it. See Tamil v. Co-Operative Home Inc. v. Amlappah (2000), 192 D.L.R. (4th) 177 (C.A.).
[2] The appeal is dismissed for mootness.