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(1) Every person who contravenes subsection 110(1) (identity of offender not to be published), 111(1) (identity of victim or witness not to be published), 118(1) (no access to records unless authorized) or 128(3) (disposal of R.C.M.P. records) or section 129 (no subsequent disclosure) of this Act, or subsection 38(1) (identity not to be published), (1.12) (no subsequent disclosure), (1.14) (no subsequent disclosure by school) or (1.15) (information to be kept separate), 45(2) (destruction of records) or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. H.A., 2011 ONCA 745
DATE: 20111128
DOCKET: C51587
COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO
Doherty, Rosenberg and Juriansz JJ.A.
BETWEEN
Her Majesty The Queen
Respondent
and
H.A.
(A Young Person
Appellant
Victor Giourgas and Theo Sarantis, for the appellant
Nadia Thomas, for the respondent
Heard and endorsed: November 24, 2011
On appeal from conviction entered by Justice Fern M. Weinper of the Ontario Court of Justice, dated October 22, 2009 and sentence imposed dated January 5, 2010.
APPEAL BOOK ENDORSEMENT
[1] In our view, the evidence of s. 21(1) party liability was overwhelming. Leaving aside the earlier events which themselves strongly point to a plan to rob, the events at the scene show beyond doubt that the appellant approached the victim knowing of the plan to rob. As found by the trial judge, this was not mere presence but at least encouragement by menacing the victim.
[2] There was circumstantial evidence that the appellant knew the principal offender was in possession of the imitation of a gun before the robbery at the victim’s vehicle, given that R.M. who was with the appellant and the principal offender saw the gun at the garbage chute. Given the other findings, there was ample evidence of s. 21(2) liability for the gun offence.
[3] Accordingly, the appeal from conviction is dismissed. The sentence appeal is dismissed as abandoned.