The accused, I.M., brought an application for a court order to cross-examine a Crown witness on their previous conviction under the Youth Criminal Justice Act (YCJA), despite the statutory access period having expired.
The Crown opposed, arguing for the YCJA's emphasis on rehabilitation and privacy for young persons.
The court considered the competing interests of youth rehabilitation and the accused's right to make full answer and defence, ultimately allowing the application.
The judge found that the proper administration of justice, especially given the serious charge and the witness's importance, justified allowing the cross-examination, distinguishing prior case law based on jurisdictional and public policy considerations.
