R. v. C.D., (2005) 343 N.R. 1 (SCC)

• Judge: McLachlin, C.J.C., Major, Bastarache, Binnie, LeBel, Deschamps, Fish, Abella and Charron, JJ.
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Case Date: April 14, 2005
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (2005), 343 N.R. 1 (SCC);2005 SCC 78

R. v. C.D. (2005), 343 N.R. 1 (SCC)

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]

....................

Temp. Cite: [2005] N.R. TBEd. DE.014

C.D., A Young Person Within the Meaning of the Youth Criminal Justice Act (appellant) v. Her Majesty the Queen (respondent) and Attorney General of Ontario, Attorney General of British Columbia, Attorney General of Manitoba and Canadian Foundation for Children, Youth and the Law (intervenors)

(30254)

C.D.K., A Young Person Within the Meaning of the Youth Criminal Justice Act (appellant) v. Her Majesty the Queen (respondent) and Attorney General of Ontario, Attorney General of British Columbia, Attorney General of Manitoba and Canadian Foundation for Children, Youth and the Law (intervenors)

(30314)

(2005 SCC 78; 2005 CSC 78)

Indexed As: R. v. C.D.

Supreme Court of Canada

McLachlin, C.J.C., Major, Bastarache, Binnie, LeBel, Deschamps, Fish, Abella and Charron, JJ.

December 16, 2005.

Summary:

A young offender (C.D.) pleaded guilty to possession of a weapon for a dangerous pur­pose, arson and breach of an undertaking. The sentencing judge imposed a sentence of six months' deferred custody followed by nine months' probation. C.D. appealed the sentence.

The Alberta Court of Appeal, in a decision reported at 346 A.R. 289, dismissed the ap­peal. C.D. applied for leave to appeal.

Another young offender (C.D.K.) pleaded guil­ty to dangerous driving and possession of stolen property. The sentencing judge im­posed a sentence of six months' deferred cus­tody followed by one month's probation. C.D.K. appealed the sentence.

The Alberta Court of Appeal, in a decision reported at 346 A.R. 393, affirmed that the dangerous driving offence was a "violent of­fence" for the purposes of s. 39(1)(a) of the Youth Criminal Justice Act. The court de­ferred the issue of the appropriate sentence to a later date. C.D.K. subsequently aban­doned the fitness of sentence ground of ap­peal. Following the abandonment, the Court of Appeal issued a final judgment dismissing the appeal. C.D.K. applied for leave to ap­peal.

The Supreme Court of Canada, in deci­sions reported at 333 N.R. 195 and 333 N.R. 199, granted C.D. and C.D.K. leave to ap­peal. The court determined that the appeals were to be heard together.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the ap­peals, quashed the custodial sentences and remitted the matter to the sentencing judges so that appropriate sentences could be deter­mined.

Editor's note: certain names in the follow­ing case have been initialized or the case other­wise edited to prevent the disclosure of iden­ti­ties where required by law, publication ban, Maritime Law Book's editorial policy or other­wise.

Criminal Law - Topic 8817.4

Young offenders - Decisions (incl. punish­ments) - Custody - Violent offences - Sec­tion 39(1)(a) of the Youth Criminal Justice Act provided that a young person shall not be committed to custody unless "the young person has committed a violent offence" - The Supreme Court of Canada held that the term "violent offence" had to be inter­preted narrowly and therefore had to ex­clude pure property crimes - The court de­fined a "violent offence" as an offence in the commission of which a young person causes, attempts to cause or threatens to cause bodily harm - See para­graphs 19 to 87.

Criminal Law - Topic 8817.4

Young offenders - Decisions (incl. punish­ments) - Custody - Violent offences - A young person (C.D.) pleaded guilty to pos­session of a weapon for a purpose danger­ous to the public peace, arson and breach of a recognizance - Section 39(1)(a) of the Youth Criminal Justice Act provided that a young person was not to be com­mitted to custody unless he had committed a violent offence - The Supreme Court of Canada held that neither the arson offence nor the breach of recognizance offence were vio­lent offences for the purposes of s. 39(1)(a) where C.D. did not cause, attempt to cause or threaten to cause bodily harm -With respect to the weapons offence, C.D. raised a table leg over his head during an altercation - While this could constitute a threat, it was unclear whether C.D. was actually threatening or attempting to cause bodily harm to the complainant - Accord­ingly, it could not be determined whether the offence constituted a violent offence - See paragraphs 88 and 89.

Criminal Law - Topic 8817.4

Young offenders - Decisions (incl. punish­ments) - Custody - Violent offences - A young person (C.D.K.) stole a vehicle and was involved in a high speed police chase that lasted more than 30 minutes - He ran two red lights and a stop sign - He drove at speeds up to 120 km/h in 60 km/h zones - He swerved to avoid police and a semi-trailer truck and drove on the wrong side of the road - He did not stop voluntarily - He pleaded guilty to dangerous driving, possession of stolen property and theft under $5,000 - Section 39(1)(a) of the Youth Criminal Justice Act provided that a young person was not to be committed to custody unless he had committed a violent offence - The Supreme Court of Canada held that the offences were not violent offences for the purposes of s. 39(1)(a) where C.D.K. did not cause, attempt to cause or threaten to cause bodily harm - See paragraph 92.

Words and Phrases

Violent offence - The Supreme Court of Can­ada discussed the meaning of "violent offence" as used in s. 39(1)(a) of the Youth Criminal Justice Act, S.C. 2002, c. 1 - See paragraphs 19 to 87.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. J.J.C. (2003), 230 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 267; 682 A.P.R. 267; 180 C.C.C.(3d) 137 (P.E.I.C.A.), consd. [para. 14].

R. v. T.M.D. (2003), 220 N.S.R.(2d) 109; 694 A.P.R. 109; 181 C.C.C.(3d) 518; 2003 NSCA 151, consd. [para. 14].

R. v. McCraw, [1991] 3 S.C.R. 72; 128 N.R. 299; 49 O.A.C. 47, refd to. [para. 20].

Bell ExpressVu Limited Partnership v. Rex et al., [2002] 2 S.C.R. 559; 287 N.R. 248; 166 B.C.A.C. 1; 271 W.A.C. 1; 2002 SCC 42, refd to. [para. 27].

Rizzo and Rizzo Shoes Ltd. (Bankrupt), Re, [1998] 1 S.C.R. 27; 221 N.R. 241; 106 O.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 27].

Pitters v. Criminal Injuries Compensation Board (Ont.) (1996), 95 O.A.C. 325 (Div. Ct.), refd to. [para. 30].

Irwin Toy Ltd. v. Québec (Procureur général), [1989] 1 S.C.R. 927; 94 N.R. 167; 24 Q.A.C. 2, refd to. [para. 31].

R. v. Keegstra, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 697; 117 N.R. 1; 114 A.R. 81, refd to. [para. 31].

Dolphin Delivery Ltd. v. Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union, Local 580, Peterson and Alexander, [1986] 2 S.C.R. 573; 71 N.R. 83, refd to. [para. 31].

R. v. Lew (1978), 40 C.C.C.(2d) 140 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 32].

R. v. Oakley (1986), 13 O.A.C. 141; 24 C.C.C.(3d) 351 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 32].

R. v. Trudel (1984), 12 C.C.C.(3d) 342 (Que. C.A.), refd to. [para. 32].

R. v. Sayers and McCoy (1983), 1 O.A.C. 239; 8 C.C.C.(3d) 572 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 32].

R. v. Lecky (H.), [2001] O.A.C. Uned. 206; 157 C.C.C.(3d) 351 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 32].

R. v. McIntosh (B.B.), [1995] 1 S.C.R. 686; 178 N.R. 161; 79 O.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 50].

R. v. Simpson (No. 2) (1981), 58 C.C.C.(2d) 122 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 59].

R. v. Colburne (1991), 66 C.C.C.(3d) 235 (Que. C.A.), refd to. [para. 59].

R. v. Younger (D.M.) (2004), 187 Man.R.(2d) 121; 330 W.A.C. 121; 2004 MBCA 113, refd to. [para. 60].

R. v. Criminal Injuries Compensation Board, Ex parte Clowes, [1977] 1 W.L.R. 1353 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 60].

Coca-Cola Ltd. v. Minister of National Revenue (Customs and Excise), [1984] 1 F.C. 447; 51 N.R. 70, refd to. [para. 72].

R. v. N.S.O., [2003] O.J. No. 2251 (Ct. J.), agreed with [para. 77].

R. v. D.L.C., [2003] N.J. No. 94 (N.L. Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 85].

Statutes Noticed:

Youth Criminal Justice Act, S.C. 2002, c. 1, sect. 39(1)(a) [para. 19].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Bala, Nicholas, Youth Criminal Justice Law (2003), pp. 444 [para. 45]; 447 [para. 48]; 457 [para. 3]; 491, 493 [para. 21].

Bala, Nicholas, Young Offenders Law (1997), p. 261 [para. 47].

Canada, Hansard, House of Commons Debates, vol. 137, 1st Sess., 37th Parlia­ment (February 14, 2001), p. 704 [para. 48].

Cornu, Gérard, Vocabulaire juridique (8th Ed. 2000), p. 907 [para. 68].

Corrado, Raymond R., Juvenile Justice in Canada: A Theoretical and Analytical Assessement (1992), p. 229 [para. 45].

Driedger, Elmer A., Construction of Stat­utes (2nd Ed. 1983), p. 87 [para. 27].

Hansard (Can.) - see Canada, Hansard, House of Commons Debates.

Markwart, Alan, Custodial Sanctions Under The Young Offenders Act, in Corrado, Raymond R., Juvenile Justice in Canada: A Theoretical and Analytical Assessment (1992), p. 229 [para. 45].

Scassa, Teresa, Violence Against Women in Law Schools (1992), 30 Alta. L. Rev. 809, pp. 816 [para. 30]; 818 [para. 85].

Sullivan, Ruth, Sullivan and Driedger on the Construction of Statutes (4th Ed. 2002), p. 162 [para. 72].

Counsel:

Patricia Yuzwenko and Charles Seto, for the appellants;

James C. Robb, Q.C., for the respondent;

Miriam Bloomenfeld and Geoff Chesney, for the intervenor, the Attorney General of Ontario;

Kathleen M. Ker, for the intervenor, the Attorney General of British Columbia;

Dale Tesarowski and Jo-Ann Natuik, for the intervenor, the Attorney General of Manitoba;

Cheryl Milne and Emily Chan, for the intervenor, the Canadian Foundation for Children, Youth and the Law.

Solicitors of Record:

Youth Criminal Defence Office, Edmon­ton, Alberta, for the appellants;

Alberta Justice, Edmonton, Alberta, for the respondent;

Attorney General of Ontario, Toronto, Ontario, for the intervenor, the Attorney General of Ontario;

Attorney General of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, for the intervenor, the Attorney General of Brit­ish Columbia;

Attorney General of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, for the intervenor, the Attor­ney General of Manitoba;

Canadian Foundation for Children, Youth and the Law, Toronto, Ontario, for the intervenor, the Canadian Foundation for Children, Youth and the Law.

These appeals were heard on April 14, 2005, by McLachlin, C.J.C., Major, Bas­ta­rache, Binnie, LeBel, Deschamps, Fish, Abella and Charron, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada. The judgment of the Court was delivered in both official languages on December 16, 2005, with the following opin­ions:

Bastarache, J. (McLachlin, C.J.C., Major, Binnie, Deschamps, Fish, Abella and Charron, JJ., concurring) - see para­graphs 1 to 94;

Lebel, J. - see paragraphs 95 to 100.