R. v. R.J.H., (2000) 255 A.R. 320 (CA)

• Judge: Irving, Sulatycky and Fruman, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Alberta)
• Case Date: November 10, 1999
• Citations: (2000), 255 A.R. 320 (CA);2000 ABCA 111

R. v. R.J.H. (2000), 255 A.R. 320 (CA);

    220 W.A.C. 320

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2000] A.R. TBEd. AP.044

Her Majesty the Queen (respondent) v. R.J.H. (appellant)

(00-18272; 2000 ABCA 111)

Indexed As: R. v. R.J.H.

Alberta Court of Appeal

Irving, Sulatycky and Fruman, JJ.A.

April 12, 2000.

Summary:

A youth pleaded guilty to theft under $5,000, failing to attend court, two counts of failing to comply with a disposition contrary to s. 26 of the Young Offenders Act and one count of failing to provide proof of payment on the transit system contrary to a municipal bylaw.

The Alberta Provincial Court, in a decision reported at 222 A.R. 28, sentenced the youth to 18 months' probation and ordered him to attend a private drug and alcohol treatment program as directed by his probation officer. The court, after holding that it had jurisdic­tion to do so, ordered the Minister to fund the treatment program. The Crown appealed, asserting that the trial judge lacked jurisdic­tion to order the youth to attend a specific program and lacked jurisdiction to order the Crown to fund the program.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, in a decision reported at 235 A.R. 23, allowed the appeal and referred the matter to the trial judge for re-sentencing. Although the trial judge had jurisdiction to order the youth to attend the program, it lacked jurisdiction to order the Crown to fund the program. The youth appealed.

The Alberta Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.

Constitutional Law - Topic 6494

Federal jurisdiction (s. 91) - Criminal law -Respecting particular matters - Juveniles or young offenders - The Alberta Court of Appeal stated that if the Young Offenders Act was interpreted as authorizing a Prov­incial Court judge to order the provincial government to pay for a specified treat­ment program, it would create a constitu­tional division of powers problem - Under s. 91(14) of the Constitution Act, 1867, the provinces had the power to administer the justice system, including establishing and paying for rehabilitative treatment programs for young offenders - Because the federal government lacked the power to direct how provinces run their programs, it could not delegate that power to the judiciary to exercise in its place - Any purported delegations would likely be unconstitutional - As statutes are pre­sumed to be constitutional, an interpreta­tion respecting the division of powers had to be favoured - See paragraphs 29 to 33.

Constitutional Law - Topic 7405

Provincial jurisdiction (s. 92) - Adminis­tration of justice (s. 92(14)) - General principles - Jurisdiction of provincial courts - [See Constitutional Law - Topic 6494 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 8704

Young offenders - General principles - Jurisdiction - Courts - [See Constitu­tional Law - Topic 6494 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 8704

Young offenders - General principles - Jurisdiction - Courts - Section 3(1)(a) of the Young Offenders Act emphasized the need to address the underlying causes of crime by youths and to develop multi-disciplinary approaches to identifying and effectively respond to youths at risk of committing offending behaviour - Section 3(1)(c.1) provided that the protection of society, which was the primary objective, was best served by rehabilitation, wherever possible ..." - The Alberta Court of Appeal held that ss. 3(1)(a) and 3(1)(c.1) did not expressly or implicitly authorize a Provin­cial Court judge to order the provincial government to pay for a specified treat­ment program - This interpretation was supported by constitutional and policy considerations.

Criminal Law - Topic 8821.1

Young offenders - Decisions (incl. pun­ishments) - Cost of treatment - [See Constitutional Law - Topic 6494 and Criminal Law - Topic 8704 ].

Cases Noticed:

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. 12].

Duncan v. R. et al. (1995), 57 B.C.A.C. 185; 94 W.A.C. 185; 102 C.C.C.(3d) 362 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 16].

R. v. Duncan - see Duncan v. R. et al.

R. v. Chabot, [1980] 2 S.C.R. 985; 24 N.R. 361; 55 C.C.C.(2d) 385, refd to. [para. 17].

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. 18].

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. 21].

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. 21].

R. v. S.S. - see R. v. Sheldon S.

Auckland Harbour Board v. The King, [1924] A.C. 318, refd to. [para. 24].

Canada (Attorney General) v. Stuart, J., and Savard (1996), 74 B.C.A.C. 81; 121 W.A.C. 81; 47 C.R.(4th) 281 (Yuk. C.A.), refd to. [para. 24].

R. v. Savard - see Canada (Attorney Gen­eral) v. Stuart, J., and Savard.

Smoky River Coal Ltd. v. United Steelworkers of America, Local 7621 et al. (1984), 53 A.R. 150; 8 D.L.R.(4th) 603 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 27].

Province of Bombay v. City of Bombay, [1947] A.C. 58 (P.C.), refd to. [para. 27].

Friends of the Oldman River Society v. Canada (Minister of Transport and Min­ister of Fisheries and Oceans), [1992] 1 S.C.R. 3; 132 N.R. 321; [1992] 2 W.W.R. 193; 88 D.L.R.(4th) 1, refd to. [para. 27].

Haig et al. v. Canada; Haig et al. v. Kingsley, [1993] 2 S.C.R. 995; 156 N.R. 81, refd to. [para. 32].

Reference Re Secession of Quebec, [1998] 2 S.C.R. 217; 228 N.R. 203; 161 D.L.R.(4th) 385, refd to. [para. 32].

Initiative and Referendum Act (Manitoba), Re, [1919] A.C. 935 (P.C.), refd to. [para. 32].

New Brunswick (Minister of Health and Community Services) v. J.G. and D.V. (1999), 244 N.R. 276; 216 N.B.R.(2d) 25; 552 A.P.R. 25; 177 D.L.R.(4th) 124 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 36].

Statutes Noticed:

Young Offenders Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. Y-1, sect. 3(1)(a), sect. 3(1)(c.1) [para. 19].

Counsel:

E.A. Hughes, for the respondent;

C.G. Lane, for the appellant.

This appeal was heard November 10, 1999, by Irving, Sulatycky and Fruman, JJ.A., of the Alberta Court of Appeal. Fruman, J.A., filed the following reasons for judgment for the court on April 12, 2000.