R. v. L.E.K., 2001 SKCA 48

• Judge: Bayda, C.J.S., Vancise and Sherstobitoff, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Saskatchewan)
• Case Date: September 20, 2000
• Jurisdiction: Saskatchewan
• Citations: 2001 SKCA 48;(2000), 203 Sask.R. 273 (CA)

R. v. L.E.K. (2000), 203 Sask.R. 273 (CA);

    240 W.A.C. 273

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2001] Sask.R. TBEd. AP.011

Her Majesty the Queen (appellant) v. L.E.K. (respondent)

(No. 90; 2001 SKCA 48)

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

Saskatchewan Court of Appeal

Bayda, C.J.S., Vancise and Sherstobitoff, JJ.A.

September 20, 2000.

Summary:

A youth court judge sentenced a young offender to 30 days of open custody fol­lowed by one year of probation. The proba­tion order contained a condition that "there be a youth worker with special training and understanding in the organic brain impair­ment who is assigned to his file, and that a comprehensive case plan be prepared for the day of his release, and I want him brought back before me ... on [the day of this release], and which should include an in-patient treatment centre with an aboriginal focus, should include special educational supports, and special supports in terms of residence". The Crown appealed, raising the issue of whether the youth court judge had jurisdiction to include the above condition in the probation order.

The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal held that the condition in the probation order exceeded the jurisdiction of the youth court judge and had to be set aside. The court sub­stituted a 12 month probation order which contained, inter alia, a direction for intensive probation supervision, a regular reporting mechanism to monitor the young person's progress and a requirement to report to a youth court worker for the purpose of re­ceiving specialized inpatient treatment for the young person's organic brain impairment and substance abuse.

Criminal Law - Topic 5848.3

Sentencing - Considerations on imposing sentence - Medical - [See second Crimi­nal Law - Topic 8809 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 5849.5

Sentencing - Considerations on imposing sentence - Competency of accused - [See second Criminal Law - Topic 8809 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 8704

Young offenders - Jurisdiction - Courts -General - [See first Criminal Law - Topic 8809 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 8809

Young offenders - Decisions (incl. pun­ish­ments) - Probation - A probation order imposed by a youth court judge contained a condition that "there be a youth worker with special training and understanding in the organic brain impairment who is assigned to [the young offender's] file, and that a comprehensive case plan be pre­pared for the day of his release, and I want him brought back before me ... on [the day of this release], and which should include an in-patient treatment centre with an aborig­inal focus, should include special educa­tional supports, and special supports in terms of residence" - The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal held that the portion of the probation order which in effect directed the provincial director to assign a youth worker with specialized training in organic brain impairment to supervise the young person was beyond the youth court judge's competence to make - Also, to the extent that the order was a direction to the pro­vincial director respecting the manner in which he was to carry out his function under the Young Offenders Act subsequent to the imposition of a disposition, it exceeded the youth court judge's jurisdic­tion - See paragraphs 1 to 34.

Criminal Law - Topic 8809

Young offenders - Decisions (incl. pun­ish­ments) - Probation - A probation order imposed by a youth court judge contained a condition that "there be a youth worker with special training and understanding in the organic brain impairment who is assigned to [the young offender's] file, and that a comprehensive case plan be pre­pared for the day of his release, and I want him brought back before me ... on [the day of this release], and which should include an in-patient treatment centre with an aborig­inal focus, should include special educa­tional supports, and special supports in terms of residence" - The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal held that the above con­di­tion in the probation order exceeded the youth court judge's jurisdiction and had to be set aside - The court substituted a 12 month probation order which contained, inter alia, a direction for intensive proba­tion supervision, a regular reporting mech­anism to monitor the young person's pro­gress and a requirement to report to a youth court worker for the purpose of receiving specialized inpatient treatment for the young person's organic brain im­pairment (fetal alcohol syndrome) and substance abuse - See paragraphs 37 to 49.

Criminal Law - Topic 8821

Young offenders - Decisions (incl. pun­ish­ments) - Treatment - [See both Crimi­nal Law - Topic 8809 ].

Cases Noticed:

R. v. V.T., [1992] 1 S.C.R. 749; 134 N.R. 289; 7 B.C.A.C. 81; 15 W.A.C. 81; 71 C.C.C.(3d) 32, refd to. [para. 17, foot­note 2].

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. [para. 17, footnote 3].

R. v. Doyle, [1977] 1 S.C.R. 597; 9 N.R. 285; 10 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 45; 17 A.P.R. 45; 35 C.R.N.S. 1; 29 C.C.C.(2d) 177; 68 D.L.R.(3d) 270, refd to. [para. 19, footnote 4].

R. v. Sheldon S., [1990] 2 S.C.R. 254; 110 N.R. 321; 41 O.A.C. 81; 77 C.R.(3d) 273; 57 C.C.C.(3d) 115; 49 C.R.R. 79, refd to. [para. 20, footnote 6].

R. v. R.J.H. (2000), 255 A.R. 320; 220 W.A.C. 320; 32 C.R.(5th) 241 (C.A.), agreed with [para. 26, footnote 7].

R. v. Tanner (1983), 36 C.R.(3d) 64 (Man. Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 28, footnote 8].

R. v. M.L. (2000), 187 Sask.R. 195 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 35, footnote 10].

R. v. W.D., [2001] Sask.R. Uned. 17 (Youth Ct.), refd to. [para. 35, footnote 11].

R. v. Sam, [1993] Y.J. No. 112, refd to. [para. 35, footnote 12].

Statutes Noticed:

Young Offenders Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. Y-1, sect. 3 [paras. 15, 24]; sect. 5(4) [para. 16]; sect. 23(1), sect. 23(2) [para. 22].

Counsel:

K.W. MacKay, Q.C., and Graeme Mitchell, Q.C., for the Crown;

Katharine Grier, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard on September 20, 2000, before Bayda, C.J.S., Vancise and Sherstobitoff, JJ.A., of the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal. The judgment of the Court of Appeal was rendered on September 20, 2000, and the following written reasons were pro­vided by the court on March 27, 2001.