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(1) Every person who contravenes subsection 110(1) (identity of offender not to be published), 111(1) (identity of victim or witness not to be published), 118(1) (no access to records unless authorized) or 128(3) (disposal of R.C.M.P. records) or section 129 (no subsequent disclosure) of this Act, or subsection 38(1) (identity not to be published), (1.12) (no subsequent disclosure), (1.14) (no subsequent disclosure by school) or (1.15) (information to be kept separate), 45(2) (destruction of records) or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.B., 2010 ONCA 720
DATE: 20101028
DOCKET: C51236
COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO
Laskin, MacPherson and Karakatsanis JJ.A.
BETWEEN
Her Majesty the Queen
Respondent
and
M.B.
Appellant
Mark Halfyard, for the appellant
Emile Carrington, for the respondent
Heard: October 20, 2010
On appeal from the disposition imposed on November 3, 2009 by Justice Teresa E. Devlin of the Ontario Court of Justice.
APPEAL BOOK ENDORSEMENT
[1] The appellant appeals her sentence of four months closed custody, followed by two months open custody, for aggravated assault and possession of a weapon for a dangerous purpose.
[2] The appellant raises three grounds of appeal. We do not accept his submissions on these grounds. Put bluntly, the sentence was fit at the time.
[3] However, the fresh evidence in this appeal relating to the appellant’s progress in the almost two years since the charges were laid, including 11 months pending this appeal, is, in a word, remarkable.
[4] For two years, the appellant has lived at home on strict restrictions. She has complied completely with these restrictions. She has embarked on a good education program and her results have been excellent. The teachers at her school have written powerful letters documenting good attitude and success in school. She has a clear educational and vocational plan for the future, including enrolment in a college in January 2011. She has excellent support in her family and is properly grateful for that support. Taken together, this constellation of positive factors supports an order that will permit her to continue her progress. The offences the appellant committed were serious. However, she has been under some restrictions for almost two years and, crucially, she has turned her life in the right direction.
[5] On the basis of the fresh evidence alone, the appeal is allowed.