R. v. C.H.I.P., (2000) 195 Sask.R. 37 (YC)

• Judge: Whelan, P.C.J.
• Case Date: July 24, 2000
• Jurisdiction: Saskatchewan
• Citations: (2000), 195 Sask.R. 37 (YC)

R. v. C.H.I.P. (2000), 195 Sask.R. 37 (YC)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2000] Sask.R. TBEd. AU.001

In The Matter Of C.H.I.P., a young person within the meaning of the Young Offenders Act, against whom an Information has been laid pursuant to s. 235 of the Criminal Code of Canada;

And In The Matter Of an Application by C.H.I.P., pursuant to s. 16(1.01) of the Young Offenders Act, to proceed in Youth Court.

Her Majesty The Queen v. C.H.I.P.

(YOA Information No. 43500211)

Indexed As: R. v. C.H.I.P.

Saskatchewan Youth Court

Whelan, P.C.J.

July 24, 2000.

Summary:

A 17 year old youth applied under s. 16(1.01) for an order that he be tried in Youth Court. The youth also challenged the constitutional validity of s. 16(1.01), seeking a constitutional exemption or a stay of pro­ceedings.

The Saskatchewan Youth Court rejected the constitutional challenge and declined to order that the youth be tried in Youth Court.

Civil Rights - Topic 3157.1

Trials - Due process, fundamental justice and fair hearings - Criminal and quasi-criminal proceedings - Young offenders - Section 16(1.01) of the Young Offenders Act provided that a youth charged with second degree murder was to be tried in adult court unless the youth court, on an application by the youth, made an order that the youth be tried in youth court - The Saskatchewan Provincial Court held that s. 16(1.01) did not violate a youth's rights under Charter ss. 7 (fundamental justice), 9 (arbitrary detention or imprison­ment), 11(c) (not to be compelled to be a witness against himself), 11(d) (presump­tion of innocence) and 15 (equality rights) - See paragraphs 157 to 178.

Civil Rights - Topic 3543

Detention and imprisonment - Imprison­ment - What constitutes arbitrary impris­onment - [See Civil Rights - Topic 3157.1 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 3603

Detention and imprisonment - Detention - What constitutes arbitrary detention - [See Civil Rights - Topic 3157.1 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 4302

Protection against self-incrimination - Right to remain silent - [See Civil Rights -Topic 3157.1 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 4959

Presumption of innocence - Evidence and proof - Young offender transfer hearings -[See Civil Rights - Topic 3157.1 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 5643

Equality and protection of the law - Par­ticular cases - Young offenders - [See Civil Rights - Topic 3157.1 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 8781

Young offenders - Transfer into or out of youth court - General - [See Civil Rights -Topic 3157.1 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 8790.1

Young offenders - Transfer into or out of youth court - Considerations - Protection of public and rehabilitation reconciled - A mature 17 year 10 month old youth fatally stabbed a helpless victim - He had a pre­vious conviction for, inter alia, assault with a weapon (knife) - Additional con­victions respecting noncompliance with court orders - He had a dysfunctional upbringing, re­sulting in personality prob­lems, anger management issues and severe substance abuse - The maximum period of detention for second degree murder in youth system was seven years - The pros­pect of rehabili­tation through treatment was not favour­able - The Saskatchewan Youth Court held that the youth should be tried in adult court - The court was not satisfied that rehabilitation could be achieved within the time frame available in the youth court system - The court con­cluded that the youth's "serious personality difficulties and the short but telling history of his diffi­culties with addictions, anger and violence, and compliance with rules, cause me to conclude that the interests of society, which included the objectives of protection to the public and rehabilitation of the young person, cannot be reconciled under the jurisdiction of the youth court" - See paragraphs 1 to 156.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. W.P.G. (1999), 119 B.C.A.C. 145; 194 W.A.C. 145; 1999 CarswellBC 192 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 5].

R. v. J.H. (1994), 24 W.C.B.(2d) 567 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 5].

R. v. R.J.T. and E.J.C. (1994), 120 Sask.R. 81; 68 W.A.C. 81 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 128].

R. v. B.W. (1997), 105 O.A.C. 277; 121 C.C.C.(3d) 419 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 130].

R. v. J.E.L., [1989] 2 S.C.R. 510; 100 N.R. 136; 101 A.R. 354; 50 C.C.C.(3d) 385, refd to. [para. 133].

R. v. C.G.M., [1999] S.J. No. 149 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 136].

R. v. G.S. (1991), 50 O.A.C. 163; 5 O.R.(3d) 97 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 136].

R. v. J.C. (2000), 130 O.A.C. 132 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 153].

R. v. R.C. (1996), 190 A.R. 161 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 158].

R. v. M.G.P., [1996] B.C.J. No. 2235 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 159].

R. v. L.A.M. (1986), 33 C.C.C.(3d) 364 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 159].

R. v. A.H. (1993), 12 O.R.(3d) 634 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 160].

R. v. A.H. (1992), 10 O.R.(3d) 683 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 160].

Ontario v. Canadian Pacific Ltd. [1995], 2 S.C.R. 1028; 183 N.R. 323; 82 O.A.C. 241; 99 C.C.C.(3d) 97, refd to. [para. 161].

R. v. R.V.B. (1994), 145 A.R. 384; 55 W.A.C. 384 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 164].

R. v. S.D. et al., [1992] 2 S.C.R. 161; 138 N.R. 385; 54 O.A.C. 343; 14 C.R.(4th) 223, refd to. [para. 169].

R. v. J.D.R. (1991), 44 O.A.C. 260 (C.A.), leave to appeal dismissed (1991), 134 N.R. 240; 49 O.A.C. 317 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 176].

Law v. Minister of Employment and Immigration, [1991] 1 S.C.R. 497; 236 N.R. 1; 170 D.L.R.(4th) 1, refd to. [para. 177].

Statutes Noticed:

Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, sect. 745.1(c) [para. 145].

Young Offenders Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. Y-1, sect. 3(1), sect. 16(1.01), sect. 16(1.02), sect. 16(1.03), sect. 16(1.1), sect. 16(1.11), sect. 16(2), sect. 16(3) [para. 127]; sect. 16(12) [para. 171]; sect. 20(1)(k.1)(ii) [para. 144].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Bala, Nicholas, Transfer to Adult Court Under the Young Offenders Act (1987), pp. 60, 61 [para. 153].

Counsel:

K. Zerr, for the Crown;

B. Slusar, for the young offender.

This application was heard before Whelan, P.C.J., of the Saskatchewan Youth Court, who delivered the following judgment on July 24, 2000.