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(1) Every person who contravenes subsection 110(1) (identity of offender not to be published), 111(1) (identity of victim or witness not to be published), 118(1) (no access to records unless authorized) or 128(3) (disposal of R.C.M.P. records) or section 129 (no subsequent disclosure) of this Act, or subsection 38(1) (identity not to be published), (1.12) (no subsequent disclosure), (1.14) (no subsequent disclosure by school) or (1.15) (information to be kept separate), 45(2) (destruction of records) or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.S., 2009 ONCA 301
DATE: 20090414
DOCKET: C47477
COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO
Rosenberg, Watt and Epstein JJ.A.
BETWEEN:
Her Majesty the Queen
Respondent
and
T. S. (A Young Person)
Appellant
Gavin S. MacKenzie, for the appellant
Greg Skerkowski, for the respondent
Heard and endorsed orally: March 20, 2009
On appeal from the conviction entered by Justice R.E. W. Carr of the Ontario Court of Justice dated April 5, 2007.
ENDORSEMENT
[1] The appellant raises two grounds of appeal. We would not give effect to either.
[2] The first complaint is that the conviction was unreasonable in that it was based on eyewitness identification evidence that was seriously flawed because of the manner in which a subsequent photographic line up was conducted. We do not agree. The complainant recognized the appellant as a person with whom he had had commercial dealings in the past, including the day prior to the robbery. The trial judge was fully cognizant of the alleged frailties in this evidence and was satisfied of its reliability, coupled as it was with evidence from another witness about the appellant’s presence at a discussion about the complainant’s possession of substantial amounts of money and the ease with which he could be robbed of it.
[3] The appellant also complains that the trial judge failed to consider certain exculpatory evidence adduced at trial. We do not agree. Neither piece of evidence was, in our view, exculpatory nor was there any obligation on the trial judge to mention each item of evidence adduced at trial in his reasons for judgment.
[4] The appeal is dismissed.
“M. Rosenberg J.A.”
“David Watt J.A.”
“G.J. Epstein J.A.”