The Youth Justice Court Process
| Author | Nicholas Bala |
| Profession | Professor of Law Queen's University |
| Pages | 353-399 |
353
A. YOUTH JUSTICE COURT PROCEEDINGS
ARE SUMMARY
Section 142 of the Youth Criminal Justice Act provides that proceedings
in youth justice court are generally governed by the provisions of the
Criminal Code that are applicable to “summary conviction offence[s] [in
adult court,] except to the extent that these provisions are inconsistent
with this Act.”1Thus the fundamental rules and processes that apply in
adult court also govern youth justice court and it is, for example not
sufficient for the Crown to prove that a youth is probably guilty; rather,
the ordinary criminal standard of proof “beyond a reasonable doubt”
must be satisfied.2However, since proceedings are summary, this means
that youth justice court proceedings are in general less complex and
more expeditious than those which are applicable to “indictable
offences” in adult court. In particular, in youth justice court there is
usually no preliminary inquiry, and almost all trials are conducted by a
judge alone (i.e., without a jury).
THE YOUTH JUSTICE
COURT PROCESS
chapter 7
1 See also ss.140–41 of the Youth Criminal Justice Act, S.C. 2002, c. 1 (to come
into force April 1, 2003), often referred to in this book as the YCJA; s. 142 refers
to Part XXVII of the Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, ss. 785–840, which
govern summary proceedings.
2R. v. M.B., [1997] B.C.J. No. 2184 (B.C.C.A.).
In adopting a summary procedure for youth justice court, the Youth
Criminal Justice Act continues the approach of the Young Offenders Act3
and the Juvenile Delinquents Act,4allowing for a more expeditious reso-
lution of cases. From the perspective of an adolescent, the youth justice
court will seem like a very formal and unfamiliar environment. The res-
olution of most cases without a jury, however, makes the court setting
less intimidating than it might otherwise be. It has been held that the
denial of the right to a jury trial to young persons in the youth justice
court process does not violate the provisions of the Charter which
guarantee equality (s. 15) and the right to a jury trial to persons facing
imprisonment of five years or more (s. 11(f)).5
In R. v. L.( R.), the Ontario Court of Appeal upheld the provisions
of the Young Offenders Act which denied a youth the right to a jury trial.
While an adult facing the same indictable charges (a number of offences
including three for break and enter) would have been entitled to the
procedure for trial by indictment with a preliminary inquiry and a jury,
the adult would also face a much greater possible maximum penalty. In
rejecting the Charter challenge, the Court of Appeal emphasized that
the maximum penalty in youth court is three years, much less than an
adult would face for the same offence. Justice Morden wrote:
the Young Offenders Act is intended to provide a comprehensive sys-
tem for dealing with young persons who are alleged to be in conflict
with the law which is separate and distinct from the adult criminal
justice system. While the new system is more like the adult system
than was that under the Juvenile Delinquents Act, it nonetheless is a
different system. As far as the aftermath of a finding of guilt is con-
cerned, the general thrust of the Young Offenders Act is to provide for
less severe consequences than those relating to an adult offender. . . .
the establishment of the legal regime . . . for dealing with young per-
sons, which is separate and distinct from the adult criminal justice
system, is of sufficient importance to warrant the overriding of the
equality right alleged to be infringed in this proceeding.6
354 Youth Criminal Justice law
3Young Offenders Act, R.S.C 1985, c. Y-1,enacted as S.C. 1980–81–82–83, c. 110,
s. 52.
4Juvenile Delinquents Act, enacted as S.C. 1908, c. 40; subject to minor amend-
ments over the years, finally as Juvenile Delinquents Act, R.S.C. 1970, c. J–3.
5Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, being Schedule B of the Constitution
Act, 1982, enacted as Canada Act, 1982, (U.K.), c. 11 (subsequently referred to
as the Charter).
6R. v. L.( R.) (1986), 52 C.R. (3d) 209 at 219 and 225 (Ont. C.A.); to the same
This line of reasoning will doubtless apply to the YCJA. The general
adoption of the summary procedure provisions of the Criminal Code
and denial of the right to a jury trial for young persons should be
accepted as constitutionally valid.
There is a range of very serious cases in which a young person may
face a sentence of more than three years. Section 11(f) of the Charter
guarantees any person facing a maximum possible sentence of five
years or longer the right to “the benefit of trial by jury.”7Accordingly,
the YCJA allows youth facing sentences of five years or longer to have
the right to choose to have a preliminary inquiry and a trial by jury.
Thus, a youth facing a murder charge, for which the maximum youth
justice court sentence is ten years, has the right to a jury trial and a pre-
liminary inquiry. Further, for very serious charges other than murder
where there is also the prospect of an adult sentence, the youth also has
the right to a jury trial and a preliminary inquiry.
Because of section 96 of the Constitution Act, 1867,8a jury trial must
be conducted by a federally appointed superior court judge (e.g., a Queen’s
Bench or Superior Court judge). Generally, youth justice court proceed-
ings are presided over by judges of the provincial or territorial court.
Section 13(2) of the YCJA provides that if a youth is charged with murder
or there is the possibility that an adult sentence may be imposed, the youth
has the right to be tried by a federally appointed superior court judge, who
has the jurisdiction to conduct a jury trial. Section 14(7) specifies that a
superior court judge dealing with a youth proceeding shall be, “deemed to
be a youth justice court judge for the purpose of [that] proceeding, [but]
retains the jurisdiction and powers” of a superior court judge, for example
in regard to issues of contempt of court and control of the jury process.
The superior court judge in this situation is deemed to be sitting as a youth
justice court judge and subject to the provisions of the YCJA governing
such matters as the right to counsel and protection of privacy.
While technically the YCJA has expanded the range of cases in
which there may be a jury trial in the youth justice system, in reality
young persons will have access to a jury trial in the same types of cases
under both statutes. Under the Young Offenders Act, only if a youth was
facing a murder charge in youth court, where the maximum sentence
was ten years, was there the right to a jury trial.9However, under the
The Youth Justice Court Process 355
7 The Charter, above note 5, s. 11(f).
8Constitution Act, 1867 (formerly, the British North America Act, 1867) (U.K.) 30
& 31 Vict., c. 3.
9An Act to amend the Young Offenders Act and the Criminal Code, S.C. 1995, c. 19,
s. 19(4). This provision increased the maximum youth court sentence for mur-
der from five years less a day in custody to ten years.
To continue reading
Request your trial