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(1) Every person who contravenes subsection 110(1) (identity of offender not to be published), 111(1) (identity of victim or witness not to be published), 118(1) (no access to records unless authorized) or 128(3) (disposal of R.C.M.P. records) or section 129 (no subsequent disclosure) of this Act, or subsection 38(1) (identity not to be published), (1.12) (no subsequent disclosure), (1.14) (no subsequent disclosure by school) or (1.15) (information to be kept separate), 45(2) (destruction of records) or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. T.B., 2008 ONCA 80
DATE: 20080206
DOCKET: C43508
COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO
DOHERTY, BORINS and LANG JJ.A.
BETWEEN:
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Respondent
and
T.B.
Appellant
R. Craig Bottomley for the appellant
Megan Stephens for the respondent
Heard: February 6, 2008
On appeal from the convictions entered by Justice N. Kastner of the Ontario Court of Justice on March 6, 2003.
APPEAL BOOK ENDORSEMENT
[1] We do not think that the trial judge placed undue emphasis on the appellant’s demeanour. She referred to a “flaw” in the way in which he responded to questions. It was open to her to so find. It, however, played little, if any, role in her assessment of his credibility.
[2] Her reasons as a whole do not support the claim that the trial judge misapprehended the evidence relating to the appellant’s flight or his relationship with the dog.
[3] The appeal is dismissed.