R. v. J.E.L., (1989) 100 N.R. 136 (SCC)

• Judge: Dickson, C.J.C., Lamer, Wilson, La Forest, L'Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory and McLachlin, JJ.
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Case Date: September 28, 1989
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1989), 100 N.R. 136 (SCC);50 CCC (3d) 385;[1989] 2 SCR 510;100 NR 136;1989 CanLII 32 (SCC);69 Alta LR (2d) 259;101 AR 354;62 DLR (4th) 315;[1989] 6 WWR 434;71 CR (3d) 306

R. v. J.E.L. (1989), 100 N.R. 136 (SCC)

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

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

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

J.E.L. (appellant) v. Her Majesty The Queen (respondent)

(20764)

Indexed As: R. v. J.E.L.

Supreme Court of Canada

Dickson, C.J.C., Lamer, Wilson, La Forest, L'Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory and McLachlin, JJ.

September 28, 1989.

Summary:

A 17 year six month old youth was charged with first degree murder. The Crown applied under s. 16 of the Young Offenders Act to have the proceedings transferred to adult court. The Alberta Provincial Court, Youth Division, dismissed the application. The Crown appealed.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench dismissed the appeal. The Crown appealed.

The Alberta Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and ordered that the proceedings be transferred to adult court. The youth appealed.

The Supreme Court of Canada, L'Heureux-Dubé and La Forest, JJ., dissenting, dismissed the appeal for the reasons stated in R. v. S.H.M. (1989), 100 N.R. 1.

Criminal Law - Topic 8790

Young offenders - Transfer out of Youth Court - Considerations - For good of child or community - A 17 year six month old youth was charged with the first degree murder of a 50 year old man - The youth's behavior deteriorated since 1983, when his father died - Since 1984 he had been in the Minister's care - Previous convictions for theft and mischief - Youth had above average intelligence, but lacked motivation - The victim was strangled and the body was hidden in the basement - If convicted in adult court the youth would be sentenced to life imprisonment; in Youth Court the maximum disposition was three years' secure custody - The Supreme Court of Canada held that the Alberta Court of Appeal did not err in ordering the youth transferred to adult court.

Criminal Law - Topic 8798

Young offenders - Transfer out of Youth Court - Evidence and proof - Section 16(1) of the Young Offenders Act permitted a youth or the Crown to apply to have the youth proceeded against in ordinary court - Section 16(2) listed the factors to be considered - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that "while there is a burden on the party seeking transfer to persuade the court that transfer to ordinary court is appropriate on the factors set out in s. 16(2) of the Act, the onus should not be regarded as a heavy one. The question is whether the judge is satisfied, after weighing and balancing all the relevant considerations, that the case should be transferred to ordinary court" - See paragraph 12.

Criminal Law - Topic 8799

Young offenders - Transfer out of Youth Court - Appeals and reviews - An order transferring or refusing to transfer a youth to adult court was appealable first to the superior court under s. 16(9) of the Young Offenders Act and then to the Court of Appeal under s. 16(10) - Both sections spoke of a "review" giving the reviewing or appellate court a discretionary power to confirm or reverse the Youth Court decision - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that "while the reviewing court must base its decision on the findings of fact made by the Youth Court judge and give due deference to that judge's evaluation of the evidence, the Young Offenders Act confers on the provincial courts of review a discretion to make an independent evaluation and arrive at an independent conclusion on those facts" - See paragraph 14.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. S.H.M. (1989), 100 N.R. 1 (S.C.C.), folld. [para. 2].

R. v. S.H.M. (1987), 78 A.R. 309 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 10].

R. v. Clements (1983), 5 C.C.C.(3d) 308 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 31].

R. v. C.R.M. (1986), 46 Man.R.(2d) 317, refd to. [para. 32].

R. v. Smith (1975), 28 C.C.C.(2d) 368 (Man. C.A.), refd to. [para. 45].

R. v. E.S.R. (1985), 36 Man.R.(2d) 276 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 45].

Statutes Noticed:

Young Offenders Act, S.C. 1980-81-82-83, c. 110, sect. 5, sect. 16(1), sect. 16(2), sect. 16(9), sect. 16(10).

Counsel:

Peter J. Royal, Q.C., for the appellant;

Michael J. Watson, for the respondent.

Solicitors of Record:

Freeland, Royal & McCrum, Edmonton, Alberta, for the appellant;

Michael J. Watson, Edmonton, Alberta, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard on April 27, 1989, before Dickson, C.J.C., Lamer, Wilson, La Forest, L'Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory and McLachlin, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada.

On September 28, 1989, the judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada was delivered in both official languages and the following opinions were filed:

McLachlin, J. (Dickson, C.J.C., Lamer, Wilson, Sopinka, Gonthier and Cory, JJ., concurring) - see paragraphs 1 to 17;

L'Heureux-Dubé, J. (La Forest, J., concurring), dissenting - see paragraphs 18 to 50.