Canada Case Law

R. v. H.J.J.B.

Court

British Columbia Court of Appeal

The trial judge erred by failing to apply the standard established in R. v. I.M. that s.72(1)(a) requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt to rebut the presumption of diminished moral blameworthiness; the evidence did not meet that standard, therefore adult life sentences under the Criminal Code were unavailable and must be set aside and replaced with the maximum youth sentences of seven years under s.42(2)(q)(ii) of the Youth Criminal Justice Act, with ancillary orders adjusted accordingly.

Source excerpt

• Adult sentence under youth criminal justice act
• Standard of proof for rebutting diminished moral blameworthiness
• R. v. i.m. precedent
• Parole ineligibility
• Ancillary orders and prohibitions
• Publication bans under ycja

Read case analysis

R. v. Z.M.L.

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

The Ontario Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, set aside the manslaughter conviction, and ordered a new trial because the judge improperly treated disbelief as evidence of guilt.

• Manslaughter
• Credibility and fabrication of evidence
• Circumstantial evidence
• Joint principal liability s.21 criminal code
• Youth criminal justice act sentencing
• Curative proviso s.686

Read case analysis

R v CP

Court

Nova Scotia Provincial Court

The court accepted the joint submission and imposed an Intensive Rehabilitative Custody and Supervision order reduced from the statutory maximum by one year of remand credit: total six years (three years intensive custodial treatment followed by three years conditional supervision), finding all statutory IRCS criteria in YCJA s.42(7) satisfied, that the joint submission did not offend the public interest, and that a 12-month deduction of pre-sentence custody applied to the custodial portion was proportionate; ancillary orders (DNA collection, lifetime weapons/firearm prohibition, non-communic…

Source excerpt

• Second-degree murder
• Intensive rehabilitative custody and supervision (ircs)
• Pre-sentence custody credit
• Joint submission on sentence
• Ancillary orders (dna, weapons prohibition, non-communication, forfeiture)

Read case analysis

R. v. R.L.

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

The Court of Appeal for Ontario held that the trial judge’s reasons for acquittal were sufficient, and dismissed the Crown’s appeal from a sexual assault acquittal.

• Sufficiency of reasons
• Crown appeal from acquittal
• Reasonable doubt
• Credibility assessment
• Publication ban
• Sufficiency-of-reasons

Read case analysis

R. v. M.F.

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

The court held that the trial judge erred in treating the victim's 'willing participation' and the respondent's provision of a morning-after pill as mitigating factors, but concluded the error did not render the imposed sentence unfit; applying YCJA principles favouring the least restrictive, rehabilitation-focused sentence, the Court of Appeal upheld the 24 months probation with 120 hours community service as fit in the circumstances and dismissed the Crown's appeal.

Source excerpt

• Sexual interference
• Sexual assault
• Youth sentencing
• Violent offence definition
• Mitigation factors
• Probation

Read case analysis

R v EP

Court

Nova Scotia Provincial Court

The accused was guilty of manslaughter because he planned and participated in a group assault that significantly contributed to the deceased's death; a reasonable person in his circumstances would have foreseen a risk of non‑trivial bodily harm from the group assault (and from the presence/use of knives once he knew or believed others had them); intervening acts by MP and CP did not break the causal chain; abandonment failed because he did not provide timely, unequivocal communication or take reasonable steps to neutralize his prior participation.

Source excerpt

• Manslaughter
• Party liability
• Aiding and abetting
• Common purpose (s.21(2))
• Unlawful act manslaughter
• Causation and intervening acts

Read case analysis

R. v. G.D.

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

Given compelling fresh evidence of rehabilitation and the likelihood that transfer to an adult facility would materially undermine rehabilitation, the court varied the custodial portion: set aside the open custody portion and substituted 8 months custody, adjusted community supervision to 4 months to comply with s.42(2)(n) YCJA yielding a total custodial disposition of 12 months on count 4, and substituted the 18-month probation order with a 24-month probation order as the interests of justice warranted those changes.

Source excerpt

• Sentencing variation
• Transfer to adult custody under ycja
• Rehabilitation
• Publication ban

Read case analysis

R. v. I.M.

Court

Supreme Court of Canada

The Supreme Court held that YCJA s. 72(1)(a) requires the Crown to rebut diminished moral blameworthiness beyond a reasonable doubt, and offence seriousness is not relevant at that stage.

• Youth sentencing
• Adult sentence application
• Burden and standard of proof
• Ycja s.72(1) interpretation
• Charter s.7 — presumption of diminished moral blameworthiness
• Youth-sentencing

Read case analysis

R. v. S.B.

Court

Supreme Court of Canada

The Supreme Court upheld an adult sentence for a 16-year-old convicted of first degree murder, finding the YCJA presumption rebutted and accountability not met by a youth sentence.

• Adult sentence under ycja s.72
• Presumption of diminished moral blameworthiness
• Standard of proof for rebuttal
• Social context evidence
• Rehabilitative potential
• Accountability under s.72(1)(b)

Read case analysis

R. v. T.M.

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

The court held that ss.42(5)(a) and 42(2)(p) of the YCJA do not violate ss.7 or 15 of the Charter; the sentencing judge committed legal error by declining to apply those provisions and by failing to consider mandatory YCJA sentencing duties, rendering the imposed DCSO illegal; appellate intervention was required and a fit substituted sentence is 18 months probation with specified terms plus 100 hours community service, with credit for 11 months of DCSO served.

Source excerpt

• Sentencing
• Charter s.7
• Charter s.15
• Youth criminal justice act
• Deferred custody and supervision orders
• Probation

Read case analysis