R. v. B.C., 2026 ONSC 2257

CITATION: R. v. B.C., 2026 ONSC 2257

COURT FILE NO.: CR-24-00001038-00SR

DATE: 2026-04-24

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

BETWEEN:

His Majesty the King

– and –

B.C.

S. Kim, counsel for the Crown

J. Heaton, counsel for the Defence

HEARD: March 30, 2026 at Hamilton

THE HONOURABLE justice L. Bale

reasons for Decision¹

OVERVIEW

1On December 6, 2024, B.C., was convicted of second degree murder, pursuant to s. 235(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, by the Honourable Mr. Justice H. Arrell. B.C. was a youth (16 years of age) at the time of the commission of the offence.

2On February 6, 2025, B.C. was sentenced to the maximum available sentence for second degree murder under s. 42(2)(q)(ii) of the Youth Criminal Justice Act, S.C. 2002, c. 1 (“YCJA”):

1. Four years in custody;

2. Followed by three years of community supervision.

3The time remaining to be served in custody at the time sentence was imposed was 21 months and 20 days. B.C.’s transition from custody to community supervision is scheduled to take place on November 25, 2026.

4B.C. has served the custodial part of his sentence to date at the Roy McMurtry Youth Centre. He will turn 20 years of age in August 2026.

5The case comes before this court pursuant to s. 94(1) of the YCJA for an automatic annual review of his sentence. As Justice Arrell has since retired, I have been assigned to preside over the review.

POSITION OF THE PARTIES

6The crown seeks that the youth sentence be confirmed.

7The defence does not seek a reduction in sentence, but rather an order that converts the remaining portion of B.C.’s custodial sentence from secure custody to open custody.

THE LAW

General Guiding Principles

8The subject-matter of the YCJA must be interpreted and applied in a manner that adheres to the Charter-protected presumption of diminished moral blameworthiness for youth: R. v. D.B., 2008 SCC 25, [2008] 2 S.C.R. 3, and R. v. I.M., 2025 SCC 23, 505 D.L.R. (4th) 1.

9The broader effects of this presumption are reflected in the declaration of principle that applies to the whole of the YCJA:

Declaration of Principle

Policy for Canada with respect to young persons

3 (1) The following principles apply in this Act:

(a) the youth criminal justice system is intended to protect the public by

(i) holding young persons accountable through measures that are proportionate to the seriousness of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the young person,

(ii) promoting the rehabilitation and reintegration of young persons who have committed offences, and

(iii) supporting the prevention of crime by referring young persons to programs or agencies in the community to address the circumstances underlying their offending behaviour;

(b) the criminal justice system for young persons must be separate from that of adults, must be based on the principle of diminished moral blameworthiness or culpability and must emphasize the following:

(i) rehabilitation and reintegration,

(ii) fair and proportionate accountability that is consistent with the greater dependency of young persons and their reduced level of maturity,

(iii) enhanced procedural protection to ensure that young persons are treated fairly and that their rights, including their right to privacy, are protected,

(iv) timely intervention that reinforces the link between the offending behaviour and its consequences, and

(v) the promptness and speed with which persons responsible for enforcing this Act must act, given young persons’ perception of time;

(c) within the limits of fair and proportionate accountability, the measures taken against young persons who commit offences should

(i) reinforce respect for societal values,

(ii) encourage the repair of harm done to victims and the community,

(iii) be meaningful for the individual young person given his or her needs and level of development and, where appropriate, involve the parents, the extended family, the community and social or other agencies in the young person’s rehabilitation and reintegration, and

(iv) respect gender, ethnic, cultural and linguistic differences and respond to the needs of aboriginal young persons and of young persons with special requirements; and

(d) special considerations apply in respect of proceedings against young persons and, in particular,

(i) young persons have rights and freedoms in their own right, such as a right to be heard in the course of and to participate in the processes, other than the decision to prosecute, that lead to decisions that affect them, and young persons have special guarantees of their rights and freedoms,

(ii) victims should be treated with courtesy, compassion and respect for their dignity and privacy and should suffer the minimum degree of inconvenience as a result of their involvement with the youth criminal justice system,

(iii) victims should be provided with information about the proceedings and given an opportunity to participate and be heard, and

(iv) parents should be informed of measures or proceedings involving their children and encouraged to support them in addressing their offending behaviour.

Sentencing Principles

10Similar principles are emphasized within the statutory framework governing sentencing under part 4 of the Act:

Purpose

38 (1) The purpose of sentencing under section 42 (youth sentences) is to hold a young person accountable for an offence through the imposition of just sanctions that have meaningful consequences for the young person and that promote his or her rehabilitation and reintegration into society, thereby contributing to the long-term protection of the public.

Sentencing principles

(2) A youth justice court that imposes a youth sentence on a young person shall determine the sentence in accordance with the principles set out in section 3 and the following principles:

(a) the sentence must not result in a punishment that is greater than the punishment that would be appropriate for an adult who has been convicted of the same offence committed in similar circumstances;

(b) the sentence must be similar to the sentences imposed in the region on similar young persons found guilty of the same offence committed in similar circumstances;

(c) the sentence must be proportionate to the seriousness of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the young person for that offence;

(d) all available sanctions other than custody that are reasonable in the circumstances should be considered for all young persons, with particular attention to the circumstances of aboriginal young persons;

(e) subject to paragraph (c), the sentence must

(i) be the least restrictive sentence that is capable of achieving the purpose set out in subsection (1),

(ii) be the one that is most likely to rehabilitate the young person and reintegrate him or her into society, and

(iii) promote a sense of responsibility in the young person, and an acknowledgement of the harm done to victims and the community;

(e.1) if this Act provides that a youth justice court may impose conditions as part of the sentence, a condition may be imposed only if

(i) the imposition of the condition is necessary to achieve the purpose set out in subsection 38(1),

(ii) the young person will reasonably be able to comply with the condition, and

(iii) the condition is not used as a substitute for appropriate child protection, mental health or other social measures; and

(f) subject to paragraph (c), the sentence may have the following objectives:

(i) to denounce unlawful conduct, and

(ii) to deter the young person from committing offences.

Factors to be considered

(3) In determining a youth sentence, the youth justice court shall take into account

(a) the degree of participation by the young person in the commission of the offence;

(b) the harm done to victims and whether it was intentional or reasonably foreseeable;

(c) any reparation made by the young person to the victim or the community;

(d) the time spent in detention by the young person as a result of the offence;

(e) the previous findings of guilt of the young person; and

(f) any other aggravating and mitigating circumstances related to the young person or the offence that are relevant to the purpose and principles set out in this section.

11Ultimately, sentencing must be both individualized to the young person and proportionate, recognizing that youths, even when convicted of serious crimes, presumptively do not bear the same level of responsibility as adults: I.M., at para. 67.

Custody and Supervision

12At times, notwithstanding the court’s obligation to consider all available sanctions other than custody that are reasonable in the circumstances, and the imposition of the least restrictive sentence, the incarceration and supervision of a young person cannot be avoided. Where this is the case:

Purpose

83 (1) The purpose of the youth custody and supervision system is to contribute to the protection of society by

(a) carrying out sentences imposed by courts through the safe, fair and humane custody and supervision of young persons; and

(b) assisting young persons to be rehabilitated and reintegrated into the community as law-abiding citizens, by providing effective programs to young persons in custody and while under supervision in the community.

13Even within the custodial context, it is easily observed that the concepts of rehabilitation and reintegration receive continued emphasis in the text of the YCJA.

14The terms “secure custody” and “open custody” are not defined in the YCJA. Under its predecessor, the Young Offenders Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. Y-1 (“YOA”), open custody meant a community residential centre, group home, childcare institution, forest or wilderness camp, or any other like place or facility, and secure custody referred to places of more secure containment or restraint of young persons.

15Where custodial sentences are imposed, the provincial director has authority to determine the level of custody, distinguished by the degree of restraint, for young persons committed to custody: s. 85(1). Some provinces have opted into the previous provisions of the YOA, specifically granting youth courts jurisdiction to determine questions of secure and open custody, as contemplated by s. 88 of the YCJA: see for example R. v. A.A.Z., 2013 MBCA 33, 291 Man. R. (2d) 152, at para. 96. While Ontario does not appear to have specifically opted into continuing these sections of the YOA through formal order in council, appellate authority in Ontario endorses the continued power of youth courts to order custody in secure, open, or some combination of the two levels of custody: R. v. J.S. (2006), 2006 22101 (ON CA), 81 O.R. (3d) 511 (C.A.), at para. 62.

16In making such determinations, it makes sense that courts be guided by the same factors for consideration that guide the provincial director:

Factors

85 (5) The factors referred to in subsections (3) and (4) are

(a) that the appropriate level of custody for the young person is the one that is the least restrictive to the young person, having regard to

(i) the seriousness of the offence in respect of which the young person was committed to custody and the circumstances in which that offence was committed,

(ii) the needs and circumstances of the young person, including proximity to family, school, employment and support services,

(iii) the safety of other young persons in custody, and

(iv) the interests of society;

(b) that the level of custody should allow for the best possible match of programs to the young person’s needs and behaviour, having regard to the findings of any assessment in respect of the young person; and

(c) the likelihood of escape.

17On an aside note, in this case it is also important to highlight that when a young person who is committed to custody under para. 42(2)(n), (o), (q) or (r), which includes sentences imposed for second degree murder, turns 20 years of age, the young person must be transferred to a provincial correctional facility for adults to serve the remainder of his youth sentence, unless the provincial director orders otherwise: s. 93(1).

Review

18In this case, the mandatory sentence review is compelled by s. 94(1):

Annual review

94 (1) When a young person is committed to custody pursuant to a youth sentence under paragraph 42(2)(n), (o), (q) or (r) for a period exceeding one year, the provincial director of the province in which the young person is held in custody shall cause the young person to be brought before the youth justice court without delay at the end of one year from the date of the most recent youth sentence imposed in respect of the offence – and at the end of every subsequent year from that date – and the youth justice court shall review the youth sentence.

19The Ministry of Children, Community and Social Services has prepared a progress report on the performance of B.C. in custody since his youth sentence took effect, for the court’s consideration, as required under s. 94(9).

20The authority of a reviewing court when dealing with such a review is found in s. 94(19):

Decision of the youth justice court after review

94(19) When a youth justice court reviews under this section a youth sentence imposed in respect of a young person, it may, after giving the young person, a parent of the young person, the Attorney General and the provincial director an opportunity to be heard, having regard to the needs of the young person and the interests of society,

(a) confirm the youth sentence;

(b) release the young person from custody and place the young person under conditional supervision in accordance with the procedure set out in section 105, with any modifications that the circumstances require, for a period not exceeding the remainder of the youth sentence that the young person is then serving; or

(c) if the provincial director so recommends, convert a youth sentence under paragraph 42(2)(r) to a youth sentence under paragraph 42(2)(q) if the offence was murder or to a youth sentence under paragraph 42(2)(n) or (o), as the case may be, if the offence was an offence other than murder.

21The grounds for review are found in s. 94(6):

Grounds for review

94 (6) A youth sentence imposed in respect of a young person may be reviewed under subsection (5)

(a) on the ground that the young person has made sufficient progress to justify a change in the youth sentence;

(b) on the ground that the circumstances that led to the youth sentence have changed materially;

(c) on the ground that new services or programs are available that were not available at the time of the youth sentence;

(d) on the ground that the opportunities for rehabilitation are now greater in the community; or

(e) on any other ground that the youth justice court considers appropriate.

22The Supreme Court of Canada, in R. v M.(J.J.), 1993 91 (SCC), [1993] 2 S.C.R. 421, provided the following commentary regarding annual reviews of youth sentences under the predecessor YOA provisions:

The section is obviously salutary. It provides an incentive to young offenders to perform well and to improve their behaviour significantly as quickly as possible. As well, it gives an opportunity to the court to assess the offenders again and to make certain that the appropriate treatment or assistance has been made available to them. It introduces an aspect of review and flexibility into the sentencing procedure, with the result that any marked improvement in the behaviour, outlook and performance of the offender can be rewarded and any deterioration assessed. The Act provides a system that it is akin to, yet broader than, the probation review provided for adult offenders.

23In this proceeding, counsel agree with and rely upon the following principles applicable to a youth sentence review, as recently reviewed and summarized by Forestell J. in R. v. M.L., 2024 ONSC 2002:

1. A review under s. 94 is not an appeal or a review of the original sentence, which is presumed to have been fit.

2. The young person bears the evidentiary and persuasive burden, on a balance of probabilities, to show that the sentence should be changed.

3. The review is contextual. All relevant factors must be considered and weighed in the specific circumstances of the case.

4. The focus is on what can now best advance the needs of the young person and the interests of society.

5. Any decision made on review must strive to promote the rehabilitation and reintegration of the young person into society, which is in keeping with the long-term protection of society.

ANALYSIS

24On this youth sentence review application, it is this court’s duty to balance the needs of B.C. with the interests of society. The interests of the public include both aspects of long-term protection and public confidence in the administration of justice.

25As a starting point, the obvious must be stated. In November 2022, B.C. committed a heinous act. As was articulated by Justice Arrell in his reasons for sentence: “To say that the facts of this murder are very disturbing to this court and no doubt to the public would be a gross understatement.” The victim suffered a senseless, brutal, slow, and painful death at the hands of B.C. The victim was loved by her family. The joy and light that she brought to others was extinguished.

26The sentence imposed by Justice Arrell took into account the extremely difficult upbringing of B.C. – one impacted by physical and emotional abuse, neglect, parental instability, immigration issues, domestic violence, substance abuse, and poverty. B.C. was introduced to drugs, alcohol, and a criminal lifestyle at the age of 13. He struggled with ADHD and had limited education. Justice Arrell noted that B.C. was medicated for schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, and anxiety, although it is unclear to this court whether these diagnoses and B.C.’s treatment plan were in place prior to the commission of this offence or during his subsequent time in custody.

27B.C. pleaded guilty. Justice Arrell acknowledged that B.C. accepted responsibility, expressed remorse, and offered an apology to those impacted by his terrible acts. At the time of sentencing, B.C. had made some gains, and the court was provided with an expert opinion that B.C. was at moderate risk of reoffending without ongoing treatment. B.C. was receiving regular medication, treatment, programming, and counselling while in detention. He was “in remission” from alcohol and drug use at the time of sentencing but candidly admitted that he was unsure he could continue his abstinence if released. Justice Arrell concluded that B.C. “must remain in detention for his own well-being to allow him to continue his various treatments and to ensure the safety of the public from any further violence from him prior to his various treatments being successfully concluded”. Such were the circumstances at the time of sentencing that led to the youth sentence imposed on B.C.

28Again, it is worth repeating that there was no sentence that could be imposed by Justice Arrell at the sentencing hearing, nor is there any fine-tuning of that sentence that can be done by this court today, which can serve to mitigate the tragedy that was caused and committed by B.C. Nothing can erase the aggravating features of the offence itself. Nothing can be done to change the finality of D.S.’s death.

29The only change that can happen is within B.C. himself, and in this case, I am satisfied that there has indeed been a persuasive level of change. In particular, I am satisfied that B.C. has established that a review and adjustment of his sentence is necessary, (1) on account of the self-improvement measures he has demonstrated – positive material changes that have occurred since the time of the offence and which have continued to accrue post-sentencing, and (2) on account of the availability, or lack thereof, of programming necessary for B.C. to continue on his path towards rehabilitation and reintegration into society.

Behaviour

30After an initial rocky start in custody, involving several peer altercations, B.C. has used his time wisely. With the exception of one (undefined) contraband infraction in June 2025, he has remained on the highest (best) level of the behavioural system since sentencing. B.C. is now described as a positive role model to others on his unit.

Education

31At the time of sentencing, B.C. was working on his credits towards his Ontario secondary school diploma through the educational staff at the Roy McMurtry Youth Centre. Within the presentence report, his educators described his strong work ethic, ability to work independently, and dedication and determination to succeed. They were proven correct in their assessment. The updated progress report before this court confirms that B.C. has now earned his high school diploma. He hopes to pursue post-secondary education.

Programming

32B.C. has availed himself of a wide variety of programming offered at the Roy McMurtry Youth Centre. He has engaged in cognitive behavioural therapy and group psychotherapy. He has completed close to 100 certificates for workshops he has participated in, including but not limited to youth gambling awareness, healthy relationships, financial literacy, food handling, travel and tourism, Muslim and Indigenous studies, parenting, LGBTQ inclusivity, pre-apprenticeship employment, conflict resolution in the workplace, stress management, etcetera. The progress report filed for this hearing reflects that B.C. has exhausted all available programming at the Roy McMurtry Youth Centre. As a result, he designed and implemented his own mindfulness program for others on his unit.

33B.C. has a family history of drug abuse. His mother is a user of heavy drugs, including crystal meth. It is apparent that alcohol and drug use played a role in B.C.’s criminal offence. He has been sober since his incarceration, although it does not appear that any addiction counselling or other such supports are presently in place.

34B.C. participated in psychotherapy for 1.5 years. This has stopped because there are no available therapists at the Roy McMurtry Youth Centre at this time.

Community Supports

35B.C.’s childhood was one of instability and trauma. At 16, he became homeless – not because he ran away from home, but because his ‘caregiver’ – his mother, who was struggling with mental health and substance abuse issues of her own – lost their housing. B.C.’s biological father is unknown to him, his stepfather was deported, his siblings are in care, and his mother is still of no fixed address. Sadly, there is no reasonable prospect of stable family support for B.C. upon his release.

36B.C. fell through the cracks as a child. We cannot permit this to happen again as a young adult. The court is advised that B.C. is on various waitlists for suitable transitional housing, community supports, and therapeutic services.

Recommendations

37The Roy McMurtry Youth Centre social worker interviewed for the progress report indicated that B.C. may benefit from transfer to open custody, where he can better prepare himself for reintegration into the community. The social worker opined that B.C. is “institutionalized” and “open custody would ease his transition.”

38The author of the progress report notes that “consistent with the principles and objectives of the Youth Criminal Justice Act, the court may consider whether a transfer to open custody is appropriate as a graduated measure to support [B.C.’s] reintegration, while maintaining supervision and structure.”

39B.C. turns 20 years of age in August. It is presumptive that he would be transferred to an adult facility unless ordered otherwise by the provincial director. In this case, it is obvious to the court that the risk of B.C.’s transfer into an adult inmate population should be avoided. It would make little sense to risk unravelling the hundreds of hours of programming and therapy that have been invested in B.C.’s future through the combined efforts of B.C. and the dedicated employees of the Roy McMurtry Youth Centre. A far more sensible transition is one that would allow B.C.’s progress and rehabilitation to continue.

40It is evident to this court that, through his diligent and dedicated pursuit of self-betterment, B.C. has outgrown the Roy McMurtry Youth Centre. Therapy and programming which meet B.C.’s development needs are no longer available. A transition is required to provide B.C. with opportunity for expanded treatment and further personal growth. A plan that thoughtfully reintegrates B.C. into the community, with strong oversight and supports in place, is the plan which best protects the public. I agree with defence counsel that a step-down transition into open custody before placement under a community supervision order is in the interests of justice in this case.

41B.C. has accepted responsibility for his crime. He has demonstrated a genuine commitment to a prosocial future. His initiative in creating and implementing a program for other youth at the Roy McMurtry Youth Centre, for example, is reflective of his desire to give back – to help make amends. Even when convicted of the most serious of crimes, the court must incentivize and acknowledge significant improvement. B.C.’s case is exemplary of the type of scenario s. 94 of the YCJA was intended to address.

42A step-down transition into open custody will allow for acute monitoring and supervision of B.C. in a less institutional setting. This is a natural transitional step towards the community supervision portion of B.C.’s sentence. I am satisfied that the public would be adequately protected under this less restrictive form of custody. Although B.C. is no longer under a Canada Border Services Agency immigration detention hold, he must be aware that his continued residency in Canada would be at incredible risk if he were to escape open custody or re-engage in criminal activity of any nature. He has resided in Canada since he was an infant. I am satisfied that his future plans include no intention to subject himself to risk of deportation to a country he has never known. I am satisfied that the public would be safe if B.C. served the final portion of his custodial sentence in an open custody environment.

CONCLUSION

43In conclusion, I am satisfied that B.C. has established, on a balance of probabilities, that he has made sufficient progress to justify a change in his sentence; that he surpassed the level of programming and services that are available to him in the secure custody setting at the Roy McMurtry Youth Centre; and that greater opportunity for rehabilitation is now available for B.C. in an open custody setting. An order converting the final portion of B.C.’s custodial sentence to open custody strikes the appropriate balance between B.C.’s needs and the interests of society. In particular, a transition to open custody best meets the objective of B.C.’s continued rehabilitation and successful reintegration into the community as a law-abiding citizen. A conversion of the final portion of B.C.’s custodial sentence to open custody is a lesser restrictive sentence, but one that continues to respect the grave nature of his offence.

44With respect to timing, I am mindful that finding the open custody placement option that is the best “fit” for B.C. will take thoughtful planning. He will require a placement that allows for employment and educational opportunities, clinical services and therapeutic programming, and mental health monitoring and supports. Placement options and resources are limited. Waitlists for services are common. However, I am confident that a robust open custody placement plan can and should be developed and secured for B.C. well in advance of his twentieth birthday. To allow adequate time for planning and implementation, the conversion to open custody will be ordered to occur by no later than July 1, 2026, although it certainly remains within the authority and discretion of the provincial director to effect this transfer to open custody earlier, as permitted under s. 85(1) of the YCJA, if a fit and appropriate placement option presents itself in advance of this date. Ideally, B.C.’s open custody placement will be one that can thereafter transition into the community supervision portion of B.C.’s sentence with ease and continuity of services and supports in November 2026.

45Accordingly, on review of the youth sentence imposed on B.C. by Arrell J. on February 6, 2025, this court orders that, by no later than July 1, 2026, the remaining custodial portion of B.C.’s sentence shall be served in open custody. All other terms of the sentence imposed by Arrell J. on February 6, 2025 remain in effect.

L. Bale, J.

Date Released: April 24, 2026

CITATION: R. v. B.C., 2026 ONSC 2257

Footnotes

1. 1This decision was given orally on April 24, 2026. At that time, I indicated that written reasons would follow. These are those reasons. They may vary in the precise language used. Where there is a variation between the oral and written reasons, the written reasons prevail.