W A R N I N G

An order restricting publication in this proceeding was made under s. 517 of the Criminal Code and continues to be in effect. This section of the Criminal Code provides:

517. (1) If the prosecutor or the accused intends to show cause under section 515, he or she shall so state to the justice and the justice may, and shall on application by the accused, before or at any time during the course of the proceedings under that section, make an order directing that the evidence taken, the information given or the representations made and the reasons, if any, given or to be given by the justice shall not be published in any document, or broadcast or transmitted in any way before such time as

( a) if a preliminary inquiry is held, the accused in respect of whom the proceedings are held is discharged; or

( b) if the accused in respect of whom the proceedings are held is tried or ordered to stand trial, the trial is ended.

Failure to comply

(2) Every one who fails without lawful excuse, the proof of which lies on him, to comply with an order made under subsection (1) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.

(3) [Repealed, 2005, c. 32, s. 17]

R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 517; R.S., 1985, c. 27 (1st Supp.), s. 101(E); 2005, c. 32, s. 17.

CITATION: R. v. Young, 2010 ONCA 156

DATE: 20100302

DOCKET: C50915

COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO

Doherty, Laskin and Goudge JJ.A.

BETWEEN

Her Majesty the Queen

Appellant

and

Stephanie Mary Young

Respondent

Jennifer Woollcombe, for the appellant

Anne London Weinstein and Neil Weinstein, for the respondent

Heard: March 1, 2010

On appeal from the order Justice Robert Maranger of the Superior Court of Justice dated July 27, 2009.

APPEAL BOOK ENDORSEMENT

[1] We are not satisfied that the justice made a jurisdictional error in discharging the respondent on the charge of first degree murder. While there was evidence, primarily consisting of statements made by the respondent, from which it would appear that the inference of planning and deliberation could have been drawn, the justice considered the entirety of the evidence and engaged her assigned task to determine whether there was sufficient evidence to support the inference of planning and deliberation. Her sufficiency determination is not subject to review on certiorari.

[2] We do not accept the Crown’s contention that the justice preferred the “defence” inferences over the “Crown” inferences. She decided, arguably incorrectly, that there was insufficient evidence to support an inference of planning and deliberation. We accept that even if that determination is wrong, it does not constitute jurisdictional error.

[3] In the end, we are in agreement with the conclusion of the Superior Court judge as set out in para. 13 of his reasons.

[4] The appeal is dismissed.