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(1) Every person who contravenes subsection 110(1) (identity of offender not to be published), 111(1) (identity of victim or witness not to be published), 118(1) (no access to records unless authorized) or 128(3) (disposal of R.C.M.P. records) or section 129 (no subsequent disclosure) of this Act, or subsection 38(1) (identity not to be published), (1.12) (no subsequent disclosure), (1.14) (no subsequent disclosure by school) or (1.15) (information to be kept separate), 45(2) (destruction of records) or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. J.L., 2008 ONCA 828
DATE: 20081205
DOCKET: C44709
COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO
Sharpe, Blair and Rouleau JJ.A.
BETWEEN:
Her Majesty The Queen
Respondent
and
J.L.
Appellant
Jonathan Bliss for the appellant
Peter Scrutton for the respondent
Heard: December 4, 2008
On appeal from the judgment of Justice William P. Bassel of the Ontario Court of Justice dated March 29, 2005.
APPEAL BOOK ENDORSEMENT
[1] In our view, it was open to the trial judge to conclude that M. had generally adopted the truth of his statement to the police identifying the appellant as one of the participants in the two robberies. The trial judge also found that while at times, in his evidence M. attempted to back away from his identification of the appellant, in the end, he did not dispute that he had told the police the truth. These findings, in our view, were available on the evidence and we see no error. Nor do we agree that the trial judge erred in giving some weight to the fact that the appellant had absconded during the trial.
[2] Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.