R. v. C.I.F., (1995) 167 A.R. 109 (ProvCt)

• Judge: Cook-Stanhope, P.C.J.
• Court: Provincial Court of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: March 03, 1995
• Citations: (1995), 167 A.R. 109 (ProvCt)

R. v. C.I.F. (1995), 167 A.R. 109 (ProvCt)

MLB headnote and full text

Her Majesty the Queen v. C.I.F. (a young person)

Indexed As: R. v. C.I.F.

Alberta Provincial Court

Youth Division

Cook-Stanhope, P.C.J.

March 3, 1995.

Summary:

A 17 year old youth was charged with manslaughter, unlawfully pointing a firearm, possession of a weapon (sawed-off shotgun) for a purpose dangerous to the public peace, possession of a prohibited weapon, using a firearm while committing an indictable offence and being unlawfully at large. The Crown applied under s. 16 of the Young Offenders Act to transfer the youth to adult court.

The Alberta Provincial Court, Youth Divi­sion, dismissed the application. The interests of society, including the objectives of af­fording protection to the public and rehabili­tation of the youth, could best be reconciled by the youth remaining within the Youth Court's jurisdiction.

Criminal Law - Topic 8790.1

Young offenders - Transfer out of youth court - Considerations - Protection of public and rehabilitation reconciled - A 17 year old youth was charged with man­slaughter, four weapons offences and being unlawfully at large - He recklessly handled a sawed-off shotgun in the pres­ence of others - The gun discharged, killing a 14 year old girl - 10 property related convictions since age 13 - No history of violence - Difficult childhood - Born to 15 year old unwed mother - Early behavioural problems - Diagnosed with an Attention Deficit Disorder - He was un­dersocialized, immature, lacked education and self-esteem and abused alcohol and drugs - The young offenders system had a three year maximum sentence, equivalent to nine years under an adult system because of parole and early release - The Alberta Provincial Court, Youth Division, opined that the youth's sentence would be less than nine years - The youth system was better equipped to treat and rehabili­tate the youth - The court refused to transfer the youth to adult court - Protec­tion of the public and rehabilitation were best reconciled by leaving the youth in the youth system.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. S.H.M. (1987), 78 A.R. 309; 35 C.C.C.(3d) 515 (C.A.), affd. [1989] 2 S.C.R. 446; 100 N.R. 1; 100 A.R. 321; 50 C.C.C.(3d) 503, refd to. [Appendix].

R. v. J.E.L., [1989] 6 W.W.R. 434; 100 N.R. 136; 101 A.R. 354 (S.C.C.), refd to. [Appendix].

R. v. J.J.M., [1993] 2 S.C.R. 421; 152 N.R. 274; 85 Man.R.(2d) 161; 41 W.A.C. 161; 81 C.C.C.(3d) 487, refd to. [Appendix].

R. v. Rahman (1993), 81 C.C.C.(3d) 436 (Ont. Prov. Div.), refd to. [Appendix].

R. v. G.J.D.C. (1991), 112 A.R. 18; 62 C.C.C.(3d) 433 (C.A.), refd to. [Appen­dix].

R. v. R.V.B. (1992), 134 A.R. 241 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [Appendix].

R. v. G.J.M. (1993), 135 A.R. 204; 33 W.A.C. 204 (C.A.), refd to. [Appendix].

R. v. C.C.M. and R.C.F., [1993] A.J. No. 706 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [Appendix].

R. v. I.D., [1993] B.C.J. No. 513 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [Appendix].

R. v. C.G.O. (1993), 139 A.R. 385 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [Appendix].

R. v. Tallman, Laboucan and Auger (1989), 94 A.R. 251; 48 C.C.C.(3d) 81 (C.A.), refd to. [Appendix].

R. v. N.H.T. (1989), 97 A.R. 378 (C.A.), refd to. [Appendix].

R. v. S.R.H.; R. v. R.C.M. (1990), 38 O.A.C. 127 (C.A.), refd to. [Appendix].

R. v. M.L.M. (1990), 82 Sask.R. 81 (C.A.), refd to. [Appendix].

R. v. J.A.M. (1990), 105 A.R. 258 (C.A.), refd to. [Appendix].

R. v. K.L.A.W. (1991), 3 B.C.A.C. 78; 7 W.A.C. 78 (C.A.), refd to. [Appendix].

R. v. S.J.C. (1992), 135 A.R. 150; 33 W.A.C. 150 (C.A.), refd to. [Appendix].

R. v. Bird (1986), 51 Sask.R. 178 (C.A.), refd to. [Appendix].

R. v. Pettigrew (1990), 56 C.C.C.(3d) 390 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [Appendix].

R. v. Austin, 16 W.C.B. 147 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [Appendix].

R. v. Owens, [1986] B.C.D. Crim. Sent. No. 7290-02 (C.A.), refd to. [Appendix].

R. v. Lecaine (1990), 105 A.R. 261 (C.A.), refd to. [Appendix].

R. v. Lefthand (1981), 31 A.R. 459 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [Appendix].

R. v. Jover (1977), 41 C.C.C.(2d) 24 (Ont. Prov. Ct.), refd to. [Appendix].

R. v. Comsa (S.H.), [1994] Alta. D. No. 7290-03 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [Appendix].

R. v. Olsen (D.I.) (1994), 149 A.R. 142; 63 W.A.C. 142 (C.A.), refd to. [Appen­dix].

R. v. V.M.G., [1993] Alta. D. No. 7290-01 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [Appendix].

R. v. Polido (1989), 110 A.R. 278 (Q.B.), refd to. [Appendix].

R. v. Jackson (1989), 110 A.R. 268 (Q.B.), refd to. [Appendix].

R. v. Francis (1991), 121 A.R. 383 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [Appendix].

Statutes Noticed:

Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, sect. 85(1), sect. 86(1), sect. 87, sect. 90(1), sect. 145(1)(b), sect. 236 [para. 4].

Young Offenders Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. Y-1, sect. 3 [para. 48]; sect. 16 [para. 2].

Counsel:

E. Miller, for the Crown;

K. Ross, for the youth.

This application was heard before Cook-Stanhope, P.C.J., of the Alberta Provincial Court, Youth Division, who delivered the following decision on March 3, 1995.