R. v. B. (J.), [1990] 2 S.C.R. 307
James B. Appellant
v.
Her Majesty The Queen Respondent
and
The Attorney General of Canada, the Attorney General of Quebec and the Attorney General for Saskatchewan Interveners
indexed as: r. v. b. (j.)
1989: March 23; 1990: June 28.
Present: Dickson C.J. and Lamer, Wilson, La Forest, Sopinka, Gonthier and Cory JJ.
on appeal from the court of appeal for ontario
Appeal -- Mootness -- Young offender challenging the constitutionality of Ontario's alternative measures programme on basis that it infringes ss. 15(1) and 7 of Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms -- Supreme Court of Canada holding in concurrent judgment that s. 4 of Young Offenders Act does not oblige provinces to implement such programme -- Issue raised in this appeal rendered moot by Supreme Court of Canada's judgment -- Admission criteria set out in Ontario's programme not infringing ss. 15(1) and 7 of the Charter.
Constitutional law -- Charter of Rights -- Equality before the law -- Fundamental justice ‑‑ Eligibility for Ontario's alternative measures programme based upon nature of offences charged against young offender -- Admission criteria set out in Ontario's programme not infringing ss. 15(1) and 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms ‑‑ Young Offenders Act, S.C. 1980‑81‑82‑83, c. 110, s. 4.
Held: The appeal should be dismissed.
Cases Cited
Applied: R. v. S. (G.), [1990] 2 S.C.R. 000, aff'g (1988), 1988 CanLII 191 (ON CA), 67 O.R. (2d) 198 (C.A.), rev'g (1988), 5 W.C.B. (2d) 200 (Ont. Prov. Ct. (Fam. Div.)).
Statutes and Regulations Cited
Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1970, c. C‑34, s. 85 [rep. & sub. 1976-77, c. 53, s. 3].
APPEAL from a judgment of the Ontario Court of Appeal (1988), 31 O.A.C. 230, allowing the Crown's appeal from a judgment of the Ontario Youth Court granting a stay of proceedings pursuant to s. 24 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Appeal dismissed.
Judyth Rekai, for the appellant.
Brian J. Gover, for the respondent.
Douglas J. A. Rutherford, Q.C., and D. J. Avison, for the intervener the Attorney General of Canada.
Yves de Montigny and Jean Turmel, for the intervener the Attorney General of Quebec.
Robert G. Richards and Ross Macnab, for the intervener the Attorney General for Saskatchewan.
//The Chief Justice//
The judgment of the Court was delivered by
THE CHIEF JUSTICE -- This appeal was heard together with R. v. S. (G.), [1990] 2 S.C.R. 000 (released concurrently with these reasons). The appellant was charged on June 16, 1988, with the indictable offence of unlawful possession of a dangerous weapon, contrary to s. 85 of the Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1970, c. C-34. The offence was alleged to have taken place on June 15, 1988, when the appellant was 13 years old.
On August 23, 1988, pursuant to her reasons in R. v. S. (G.) (1988), 5 W.C.B. (2d) 200, Judge King of the Provincial Court of Ontario (Family Division), ordered a stay of proceedings against the appellant. The respondent appealed the Youth Court judge's ruling to the Court of Appeal of Ontario. 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), 1988 CanLII 191 (ON CA), 67 O.R. (2d) 198. 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: (1988), 31 O.A.C. 230.
For the reasons which I have given in R. v. S. (G.), supra, 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.
Solicitor for the appellant: Judyth Rekay, Toronto.
Solicitor for the respondent: The Ministry of the Attorney General, Toronto.
Solicitor for the intervener the Attorney General of Canada: John C. Tait, Ottawa.
Solicitors for the intervener the Attorney General of Quebec: Yves de Montigny and Françoise Saint‑Martin, Ste‑Foy.
Solicitor for the intervener the Attorney General for Saskatchewan: Brian Barrington‑Foote, Regina.