Canada v Canadian Doctors for Refugee Care et al [Appeal, Refugee Health Care]

Court: Federal Court of Appeal, 2015

The hearing originally scheduled for Oct 26 – 27, 2015 was adjourned following the elections; and the appeal by the government was subsequently withdrawn. In June 2012, the Federal government made cuts to healthcare insurance provided to refugee claimants under the Interim Federal Health Program (IFHP). The Canadian Doctors for Refugee Care (CDRC), the Canadian…

Read Full Case Article

Canada v Canadian Doctors for Refugee Care et al [Refugee Health Care – Stay Pending Appeal]

Court: Federal Court of Appeal, 2014

In June 2012, the Federal government made cuts to healthcare insurance provided to refugee claimants under the Interim Federal Health Program (IFHP). The Canadian Doctors for Refugee Care (CDRC), the Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers (CARL) and Justice for Children and Youth (JFCY) filed an application for judicial review of these cuts, along with two…

Read Full Case Article

Canadian Doctors for Refugee Care et al v Canada [Refugee Health Care]

Court: Federal Court of Canada, 2014

JFCY was a public interest applicant to a court challenge to the 2012 cuts in Refugee Healthcare by the Government of Canada. The other public interest applicants were the Canadian Doctors for Refugee Care, The Canada Refugee Lawyers Association and there were two indivually affected applicants. Summary prepared by the Federal Court of Canada: This…

Read Full Case Article

Ashley Smith Inquest

Court: Office of the Chief Coroner (Ontario), 2013

The Ashley Smith inquest was an Ontario coroner’s inquest into the death of young offender Ashley Smith, a teenager who died by self-inflicted strangulation on October 19, 2007, while she was in custody and under suicide watch at the Grand Valley Institution for Women. At the inquest, JFCY acted as legal representative for the Empowerment…

Read Full Case Article

R v RC [DNA samples]

Court: Supreme Court of Canada, 2005

A Nova Scotia court ordered that a young person found guilty of an assault was required to give a DNA sample. The decision was appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada. Justice for Children and Youth intervened in this case as a “friend of the court”. Lawyers at Justice for Children and Youth successfully argued that in deciding whether to order DNA from a young person the trial judge must take into account the underlying principles and objectives of the youth criminal justice legislation as well as those in international law.

Read Full Case Article

R v DB [presumption of youth sentence, onus on Crown for adult sentence]

Court: Ontario Court of Appeal and Supreme Court of Canada, 2006

D.B. is a young person who was found guilty of manslaughter and given a youth sentence. The sentencing judge declared unconstitutional the sections of the Youth Criminal Justice Act which make it a presumption that the youth would get an adult sentence and have his identity published. The Crown appealed the decision to the Ontario Court of Appeal. Justice for Children and Youth was made an intervener in the appeal and argued that the sentencing judge was correct.

Read Full Case Article

R v CD & CDK [Definition of “violent offence”]

Court: Supreme Court of Canada, 2005

JFCY intervened in 2 cases heard together in the Supreme Court of Canada in the spring of 2005 about the interpretation of the term “violent offence” under the Youth Criminal Justice Act. This was one of the first cases in which the Court was asked to interpret the relatively new Youth Criminal Justice Act.

Read Full Case Article

BVN & BWP v R [General Deterrence & the YCJA]

Court: Supreme Court of Canada, 2006

Justice for Children and Youth appeared as interveners at the Supreme Court of Canada on these two cases which were heard together, appealing decisions from the Courts of Appeal in British Columbia and Manitoba. The cases involved sentencing appeals in which the issue was whether general deterrence was a factor to be considered in sentencing a young person under the YCJA.

Read Full Case Article

R v AM [Sniffer Dogs in Schools]

Court: Supreme Court of Canada, 2008

JCCY intervened at the Supreme Court of Canada in a case against a student at a Sarnia high school. Using a practice that some schools and boards liked more than others, the principal invited the police to drop by with their sniffer dogs to search for drugs anytime.

Read Full Case Article