Regina v J.P.
[Indexed as: R. v P (J.)]
Supreme Court of Canada, Dickson C.J.C., Lamer; Wilson, La Forest, Sopinka, Gonthier and Cory JJ. June 28, 1990.
MA. Edwardh, for accused, appellant. B.J. Gover, for the Crown, respondent. D.J.A. Rutherford, Q.C., and D.J. Avison, for intervener, Attorney-General of Canada. Y de Montigny and J. Thrmel, for intervener, Attorney-General of Quebec. R. G. Richards and R. W. MacNab, for intervener, Attorney-General for Saskatchewan.
The judgment of the court was delivered by
DICKSON C.J.C.: — This appeal was heard together with R. v. S.(G.), S.C.C., No. 21336 (released concurrently with these reasons) [ ante, p. 92]. The appellant was charged on April 13, 1988, with the indictable offence of possession of instruments for the purpose of breaking into a vehicle and the dual procedure offences of theft under $1,000, and possession of stolen goods under $1,000, pursuant to ss. 309(1), 294(b), and 313(b) of the Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1970, c. C-34. The offences were alleged to have occurred on or about April 11, 1988, when the appellant was 15 years of age.
On July 8, 1988, Judge King of the Provincial Court of Ontario (Family Division), released reasons for judgment in this appeal, 5 W.C.B. (2d) 111, and in R. v. S.(G.) (1988), 5 W.C.B. (2d) 200, in which she held that the alternative measures programme in Ontario, authorized pursuant to s. 4 of the Young O f fenders Act, S.C. 1980-81-82-83, c. 110, infringed the appellant's rights pursuant to ss. 15(1) and 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. On August 4, 1988, Judge King granted a stay of proceedings pursuant to s. 24 of the Charter.
The respondent appealed from the rulings of the youth court judge to the Ontario Court of Appeal. Reasons for judgment were given by Lacourcière J.A. for a unanimous court on December 29, 1988, concurrently with the court's reasons in R. v. S.(G.) (1988), 64 C.C.C. (3d) 332, 31 O.A.C. 161, 67 O.R. (2d) 198 (C.A.). The appeal was allowed and orders were made to quash the orders staying the proceedings and to remit the matters for trial before another judge of the youth court of Ontario: 31 O.A.C. 231.
For the reasons which I have given in R. v. S.(G.), I would dismiss the appeal, and answer the constitutional questions raised in this appeal in the following manner:
Are the admission criteria set out in the Alternative Measures Program designated by the Attorney General for the province of Ontario inconsistent with s. 7 or s. 15(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms? Answer: No.
If the admission criteria set out in the Alternative Measures Program designated by the Attorney General for the province of Ontario are inconsistent either with s. 7 or s. 15(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, whether that inconsistency is justified on the basis of s.1 thereof. Answer: The question need not be answered.
Appeal dismissed.