The youth appellant was convicted of three robberies and the Crown sought Serious Violent Offence (SVO) designations under the Youth Criminal Justice Act.
The Crown relied on victim impact statements to prove serious bodily harm, and the youth justice court judge denied the appellant's request to cross-examine the victims.
On appeal, the Court of Appeal held that an SVO designation is part of the sentencing process, making victim impact statements admissible.
The Court further held that while offenders have a right to cross-examine on disputed facts at sentencing, this right is not automatic for victim impact statements; the offender must satisfy an 'air of reality' test that the facts are disputable and the request is not specious.
The appeal was dismissed as the appellant's request lacked an air of reality.
