Jurisdiction of the Youth Justice Court

• Author: Nicholas Bala, Sanjeev Anand
• Pages: 178-218

178

C H A P T E R 3

JURISDICTION OF THE

YOUTH JUSTICE COURT

A. YOUTH JUSTICE COURTS AND SERVICES

The Youth Criminal Justice Act specif‌ies, in section 13(1), that each

province and territory h as the responsibility to designate a court as its

“youth just ice court.”1 The Young Offenders Act had a sim ilar provision,2

except that the term “youth court” was used under the old law. The

word “justice” was added to the off‌icial def‌inition of “youth court” in

the YCJA to give a sense that the court represents a relatively formal re-

sponse to youth offending, and that in this forum, the community can

expect fairness, accountability, and respect for victims. The YCJA con-

sistently refers to “youth justice courts,” which is the term that should

be used in formal document s. It is common, however, for justice system

professionals and the public to use the simpler, shorter term “youth

court” to refer to the court with specia l procedures and powers that

deals with “young persons” as distinguished from “adult court.”3 One

1 Youth Criminal Justice Act, S.C. 2002, c. 1 (in force 1 Apr il 2003) [YCJA].

2 Young Offenders Act, R. S.C. 1985, c. Y-1, enacted as S.C. 1980– 81–82– 83, c. 110

[YOA]. The Act was also amended in 1985 throug h An Act to amend the Young

Offenders Ac t, the Criminal Code, the Penitentiary Ac t, and the Prisons and Re-

formatories Act, R .S.C. 1985 (2d Supp.), c. 24 (in force 1 September 1986 and 1

November 1986), and in 1995 through An Act to am end the Young Offenders Act

and the Criminal Code, S.C. 1995, c. 19.

3 The YOA used the t erm “ordinary court” to refer t o the court in which adults

were prosecuted and t o which the most serious cas es involving young persons

Jurisdict ion of the Youth Justice Court 17 9

may also hear the terms “young offenders’ court” and “YO court” used,

but these terms should be avoided, as they imply th at all youths who

appear are offenders and guilty.4

One might expect that t he “youth justice court” should be a “spe-

cial” court, one with judges who have exper ience or educational quali-

f‌ications to equip them for dealing with troubled youth as well as a

distinctive philosophy. At least, one might expect a courtroom sepa rate

from the adult courts. In some places in Can ada and elsewhere in the

world, the courts that deal with adolescent offenders have some or all

of these special ch aracteristics, but under the YCJA, the prov inces and

territories have a g reat deal of discretion about the designation, staff‌ing,

and resources of youth justice courts, wit h substantial variation in how

these courts operate t hroughout the country.

Only Quebec has est ablished a specialized youth court w ith provin-

cially appointed judges havi ng jurisdiction over youth court proceedings,

child protection, and adoption cases.5 This court generally sits in special

courtrooms and in the la rge cities in the province there are even specia l

courthouses separate f rom where adults appear. Under both the YOA and

the YCJA, in comparison to judges in other provinces, youth court judges

in Quebec have placed an emphasis on limited accountability, address-

ing needs and rehabilitation of adolescent offenders. Their approach

to young offenders has generally resulted in lower rates of custody use

than elsewhere in Canada. It is also consistent wit h the institutional

structures adopted in th at province, as the youth justice system there is

closely linked to the child welfare system. Quebec has a broad range of

social policies th at are among the most supportive of children and youth

in Canada.

might be tra nsferred; colloquially, it was c alled “adult court.” The YCJA has no

explicit def‌in ition for “adult” or “ordinary” court sinc e there is no provision

for transfer of ch arges to any other court. The YCJA does, however, have re fer-

ences to the “super ior court” deemed to be sitting a s a “youth justice court” for

purpose s of dealing with the most se rious charges for which a sentence of more

than th ree years may be imposed (s. 13(3)).

4 Other slang ex pressions for “youth justice cour t” include “kiddie court,” some-

times use d by police or prosecutors as a derogator y allusion to the limited

penaltie s; and “juvie court,” probably owing to the in f‌luence of the US media

where the term “juve nile court” is commonly used. The t erm “Juvenile Court”

was used under C anada’s Juvenile Delinque nts Act, enacted as S.C. 1908, c. 4 0;

subject to minor amend ments over the years, f‌ina lly as Juvenile Delinque nts Act,

R.S.C. 1970, c. J-3 [JDA], in force until 1984.

5 Known technic ally as the Youth Division of the Cour t of Québec, and com-

monly as the Youth Court (Tribun al de la Jeunesse), Courts of Justice Act, R.S.Q.

c. T-16, s. 83.

YOUTH CRIM INAL JUSTICE LAW180

In most places in Canada, jurisdiction for YCJA cases is given to

the judges of the provincial or terr itorial cour t who generally deal w ith

adult criminal c ases, but adult and youth cases are generally scheduled

for hearings at different time s. These judges are appointees of the prov-

incial or territori al government, and all have had legal trai ning.

The common practice of scheduling youth and adult cases for dif-

ferent times or days offers a few benef‌its. It facilit ates transport from

youth detention facilities and appearances by professionals who deal

with youth. It also reduces the possibilities for youth to be inf‌luenced

by adult offenders in such places as court waiting room s. The fact that

judges with a responsibility for adult criminal case s deal with cases

under the YCJA means that the se judges are familiar with the substan-

tive criminal law and evidentiary i ssues that arise in youth cases; how-

ever, some of these judges may not take a truly dif ferent approach with

youths than they do wit h adults. That raises concern.

In some places, jurisdiction for youth case s is given to provincially

appointed judges who also have responsibil ity for a range of family and

domestic matters, such as child protection and spous al support. The

rationale is that the se judges may better understand the fami ly prob-

lems faced by many young offenders and may be more familiar with

the types of community resources available to assist t hem. Outside of

Quebec, however, this approach is becoming less common, with an i n-

creasing use of judges who normally deal with adult criminal matters

to preside over YCJA cases as well.

In a number of places in Canada, especially outside of urban areas,

provincially and territorially appointed judges regularly deal with

youth court, adult criminal c ases, and family law m atters. As a result,

there are places where adult and youth court dockets are combined on

a single day. In these places, when youth cases are c alled, the court

clerk may say, “Closing adult court and opening youth justice court,”

and then when an adult case is called, say, “Closing youth justice court

and opening adult court.” This pattern may occur several t imes in one

session .

All jurisdictions in Canada now have a single mini stry to provide

all community and custody-based services for young offenders, includ-

ing having responsibility for the preparation of pre-sentence reports. In

most provinces, responsibility for the provision of services for young of-

fenders is with the min istry responsible for adult correctional ser vices.

Quebec and British Columbia represent one approach to youth jus-

tice. In Quebec, since the YOA c ame into force in 1984, young offenders

and child welfare ser vices have been closely linked, and the province

has one of the lowest use rates of youth court and custody in C anada.