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(1) Every person who contravenes subsection 110(1) (identity of offender not to be published), 111(1) (identity of victim or witness not to be published), 118(1) (no access to records unless authorized) or 128(3) (disposal of R.C.M.P. records) or section 129 (no subsequent disclosure) of this Act, or subsection 38(1) (identity not to be published), (1.12) (no subsequent disclosure), (1.14) (no subsequent disclosure by school) or (1.15) (information to be kept separate), 45(2) (destruction of records) or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.
Court of Appeal for Ontario
CITATION: R. v. G.J., 2012 ONCA 434
DATE: 20120621
DOCKET: C54682
BEFORE: Goudge, Watt and Hoy JJ.A.
BETWEEN
Her Majesty the Queen
Respondent
and
G.J. (A Young Person)
Appellant
COUNSEL:
Adam Romain, for the appellant
Catherine Mullaly, for the respondent
HEARD: June 18, 2012
On appeal from the disposition imposed on September 1, 2011 by Justice G.R. Wakefield of the Ontario Court of Justice, sitting without a jury.
APPEAL BOOK ENDORSEMENT
[1] In our view the sentence imposed at the time was not unwarranted. However, since then the appellant has done well in school and has good prospects for the summer. He is very fortunate to have caring and supportive grandparents who will do their best to guide him on the right path.
[2] In light of the fresh evidence the just result is that the balance of the custodial sentence shall be commuted to deferred custody. The probation order is to remain as imposed at trial subject to any further steps the appellant is advised to take.
[3] The sentence appeal is allowed in terms of these reasons.