WARNING THIS IS AN APPEAL UNDER THE YOUTH CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT AND IS SUBJECT TO:
110(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.
(2) Subsection (1) does not apply (a) in a case where the information relates to a young person who has received an adult sentence; (b) in a case where the information relates to a young person who has received a youth sentence for a violent offence and the youth justice court has ordered a lifting of the publication ban under subsection 75(2); and (c) in a case where the publication of the information is made in the course of the administration of justice, if it is not the purpose of the publication to make the information known in the community.
(3) A young person referred to in subsection (1) may, after he or she attains the age of eighteen years, publish or cause to be published information that would identify him or her as having been dealt with under this Act or the Young Offenders Act , chapter Y-1 of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1985, provided that he or she is not in custody pursuant to either Act at the time of the publication.
111(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.
138(1) Every person who contravenes subsection 110(1) (identity of offender not to be published), 111(1) (identity of victim or witness not to be published), 118(1) (no access to records unless authorized) or 128(3) (disposal of R.C.M.P. records) or section 129 (no subsequent disclosure) of this Act, or subsection 38(1) (identity not to be published), (1.12) (no subsequent disclosure), (1.14) (no subsequent disclosure by school) or (1.15) (information to be kept separate), 45(2) (destruction of records) or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
DATE: 20200306 DOCKET: C61317
Benotto, Paciocco and Thorburn JJ.A.
BETWEEN
Her Majesty the Queen Respondent
and
A.G. Appellant
Counsel: Brian Irvine, for the appellant Nicole Rivers, for the respondent
Heard and released orally: January 17, 2020
On appeal from the conviction entered on October 30, 2015 and the sentence imposed on October 30, 2015 by Justice Alphonse T. Lacavera of the Ontario Court of Justice.
REASONS FOR DECISION
Appeal of Convictions
[1] In this case, the trial judge found that the accused worked together with the co-accused, to chase and assault the complainant.
[2] Each accused agreed with the others to meet the complainant near his girlfriend’s house. They expected the complainant to arrive when he did, and there was common participation in a continuing event wherein the complainant was chased around the area. The appellant hit the complainant in the chest and although this did not result in bodily injuries, he participated in an assault and was liable as a joint principal. Joint principals are jointly responsible for the foreseeable consequences of an agreed act.
[3] The complainant testified that after Mario took his bag, the appellant called him “Pussy” and was “shit-talking”. This can be interpreted as promotion of further violence.
[4] It is reasonable to infer that the appellant knew the others intended to assault the complainant, and that he encouraged this through his words and actions. There was no temporal break between the chase and the assaults which finding is owed deference.
[5] For these reasons, the appeal of the conviction for the assault causing bodily harm is dismissed.
Sentence
[6] In this case, the facts read out on the guilty pleas of the co-accused made no mention of the appellant A.G. by name or of his participation in the assault. Nor were the guilty pleas used as evidence against the appellant.
[7] The only reference to the co-accused in this proceeding was to explain that they pled guilty to a lesser charge of assault. Moreover, the trial judge gave detailed reasons for finding the appellant guilty of the assault causing bodily harm.
[8] Lastly, in imposing a more onerous sentence on the appellant than the two accused who pled guilty, the trial judge concluded that the appellant was not in the same position as “they, although it was late in coming, pled guilty to assault level 1 and expressed some sign of contrition and remorse in that at least they admitted their guilt.”
[9] The appellant’s failure to do likewise justifies a more serious sentence.
[10] For these reasons, while leave to appeal the sentence is granted, the sentence appeal is dismissed.
“M.L. Benotto J.A.”
“David M. Paciocco J.A.”
“J.A. Thorburn J.A.”