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(1) Every person who contravenes subsection 110(1) (identity of offender not to be published), 111(1) (identity of victim or witness not to be published), 118(1) (no access to records unless authorized) or 128(3) (disposal of R.C.M.P. records) or section 129 (no subsequent disclosure) of this Act, or subsection 38(1) (identity not to be published), (1.12) (no subsequent disclosure), (1.14) (no subsequent disclosure by school) or (1.15) (information to be kept separate), 45(2) (destruction of records) or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. M.M., 2008 ONCA 874
DATE: 20081222
DOCKET: C48643
COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO
Laskin, Gillese and Blair JJ.A.
BETWEEN
Her Majesty the Queen
Respondent
and
M.M.
Appellant
Andrea McEwan, for the appellant
Deborah Krick, for the respondent
Heard: December 18, 2008
On appeal from the sentence imposed by Justice Lloyd M. Budzinski of the Ontario Court of Justice on November 14, 2007.
APPEAL BOOK ENDORSEMENT
[1] We see no error in the trial judge’s determination to sentence the appellant as an adult. Although the immigration consequences of the sentence may have been relevant, in the light of the position taken by defence counsel at trial and the absence of a proper evidentiary record, we are of the view that the trial judge did not err in failing to tale into account the appellant’s possible deportation.
[2] Accordingly, although leave to appeal sentence is granted, the sentence appeal is dismissed.