Resources

Cases & Decisions

• Ashley Smith Inquest

  The Ashley Smith inquest was an Ontario coroner’s inquest into the death of young offender Ashley Smith, a teenager who…

• R v RC [DNA samples]

  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.

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

  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.

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

  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.

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

  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.

• R v AM [Sniffer Dogs in Schools]

  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.

• R v SAC [Interpreting “a history that indicates a pattern of findings of guilt” under the YCJA]

  JFCY intervened at the Supreme Court of Canada in this case, appealing a decision from the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal. This case involved a sentencing appeal in which the issues included determining the interpretation of “… a history that indicates a pattern of findings of guilt…”

• R v LTH [Police Interrogation of Young People]

  JFCY intervened at the Supreme Court of Canada in a case against a young person from Nova Scotia. The young person had been charged with dangerous driving causing bodily harm. When he was taken to the police station, the police went through a standard form with him, telling him about his right to refuse to answer questions or to have a lawyer or other adult present. While the officer was reading the form, the responses of the young person seemed to indicate that he did not understand the nature of the form.

• R v KM et al [DNA samples]

  JFCY intervened at both the Ontario Court of Justice and the Ontario Court of Appeal in this case about whether it is constitutional to compel the taking of DNA samples from young people who have been found guilty of designated offences, under ss. 487.051(1) and (2) of the Criminal Code.