JFCY intervened in these two matters, that were heard together, considering the interpretation and application of s. 72 of the Youth Criminal Justice Act. This section provides for young people to be sentenced as adults where it has been established that the presumption of diminished moral blameworthiness has been rebutted, and where the sentencing provisions of the YCJA would be of insufficient length to hold the young person accountable for their offending behaviour.
I.M. / S.B. v HIS MAJESTY THE KING, July 18, 2025 SCC
[Adult Sentencing for Youth]
In its companion judgments in I.M. and S.B., the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) clarified the interpretation and application of s. 72(1) of the Youth Criminal Justice Act (YCJA), which sets out a two-step test to determine when an adult sentence should be imposed on a young person:
- the presumption of diminished moral blameworthiness or culpability has been rebutted; and
- the youth sentence would not be of sufficient length to ensure accountability.
The presumption of diminished moral blameworthiness is grounded in the recognition that youth differ developmentally from adults and, therefore, require a different approach to sentencing that considers their reduced maturity and capacity for moral judgment.
JFCY’s intervention focused on the first prong of the adult sentence test. JFCY argued that:
- The presumption should only be rebutted in exceptional circumstances, consistent with Canada’s obligations under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child and other international human rights instruments.
- The Crown should have a higher evidentiary burden to rebut the presumption where a young person is disadvantaged by personal or social context factors such as cognitive disability, mental health issues, or adverse childhood experiences.
- Courts must avoid relying on stereotypes, misconceptions, or unconscious bias when assessing whether a young person demonstrates adult-like characteristics.
The SCC affirmed that s. 72(1) requires two distinct legal inquiries, and sentencing judges must assess each prong independently. At the first prong:
- The seriousness of the offence is not relevant to rebutting the presumption of diminished moral blameworthiness. Instead, courts must examine the particular personal circumstances of the young person to determine if their developmental age is akin to an adult.
- To rebut the presumption, the Crown must prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that although a young person’s chronological age at the time of the offence was under 18, their developmental age was that of an adult. This higher standard of proof is required to ensure that the YCJA conforms to the imperatives of the Charter.
