Criminal Offences: Youth Criminal Justice Act (2:III) - Revision history

Nate Russell at 20:16, 27 November 2025

2025-11-27T20:16:18Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:16, 27 November 2025
Line 437:		Line 437:
	Bail hearings (''YCJA'' ss 28 to 29) are not specifically listed as a purpose for which the court can order a s 34 report without the explicit consent of both the young person and the Crown. Sometimes, however, the Crown will unilaterally seek a s 34 report for the purpose of bail without the consent of the young person. This issue has been considered by the courts.		Bail hearings (''YCJA'' ss 28 to 29) are not specifically listed as a purpose for which the court can order a s 34 report without the explicit consent of both the young person and the Crown. Sometimes, however, the Crown will unilaterally seek a s 34 report for the purpose of bail without the consent of the young person. This issue has been considered by the courts.

	In [https://~~www.~~canlii.~~org/en/bc~~/~~bcpc~~/~~doc/2013/2013bcpc195/2013bcpc195.html~~'' R. v. K.T.J.''], 2013 BCPC 195 (''KTJ''), the Crown sought a s 34 report to help determine appropriate release conditions on bail. The young person did not consent. The BC Provincial Court ruled that the Crown’s application was “beyond the scope of the legislation”, commenting however that it was a “curious omission” (''KTJ'' at para 17).		In [https://canlii.ca/t/fzshm ''R. v. K.T.J.''], 2013 BCPC 195 (''KTJ''), the Crown sought a s 34 report to help determine appropriate release conditions on bail. The young person did not consent. The BC Provincial Court ruled that the Crown’s application was “beyond the scope of the legislation”, commenting however that it was a “curious omission” (''KTJ'' at para 17).

	In [https://~~www.~~canlii.~~org/en/mb~~/~~mbpc~~/~~doc/2015/2015mbpc43/2015mbpc43.html~~ ''R. v. K.M.''], 2015 MBPC 43, the defence argued “that the youth justice court has no jurisdiction to order a [s 34 report] without the consent of a young person at the bail stage…” (at para 6). The Crown disagreed, arguing that the omission of bail in s 34(2) was a “technical defect” and “drafting oversight” by parliament. Manitoba’s Provincial Court agreed with the Crown, ruling that a court may, on its own motion or that of the Crown, order a s 34 report for the purpose of first instance bail.		In [https://canlii.ca/t/gl6s0 ''R. v. K.M.''], 2015 MBPC 43, the defence argued “that the youth justice court has no jurisdiction to order a [s 34 report] without the consent of a young person at the bail stage…” (at para 6). The Crown disagreed, arguing that the omission of bail in s 34(2) was a “technical defect” and “drafting oversight” by parliament. Manitoba’s Provincial Court agreed with the Crown, ruling that a court may, on its own motion or that of the Crown, order a s 34 report for the purpose of first instance bail.

	Only the people described in subsection 119(6) of the ''YCJA'' can have access to s 34 medical and psychological reports.		Only the people described in subsection 119(6) of the ''YCJA'' can have access to s 34 medical and psychological reports.
Line 448:		Line 448:
	Amendments to the ''Criminal Code'' have aimed to enhance victim’s roles in the criminal justice system. The ''YCJA'' similarly aims to enhance the role of victims. This is demonstrated by the references to victims’ rights in the ''YCJA''’s principles under section 3 , and the sentencing requirement to consider harm done to victims (''YCJA'' s 38(3)(b)).		Amendments to the ''Criminal Code'' have aimed to enhance victim’s roles in the criminal justice system. The ''YCJA'' similarly aims to enhance the role of victims. This is demonstrated by the references to victims’ rights in the ''YCJA''’s principles under section 3 , and the sentencing requirement to consider harm done to victims (''YCJA'' s 38(3)(b)).

	BC’s victims’ rights legislation, the ''[https://~~www.bclaws.gov.bc~~.ca/~~civix/document/id/complete/statreg~~/~~96478_01~~ Victims of Crime Act]'', RSBC 1996, c 478, helps ensure victims’ views and concerns do not go unnoticed. The ''[https://laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-23.7/FullText.html Canadian Victims’ Bill of Rights]'', SC 2015, c 13 guarantees victims’ rights across Canada. Refer to '''[[Introduction to Law for Victims of Crime (4:I)\|Chapter 4: Victims]]''' for more information.		BC’s victims’ rights legislation, the ''[https://canlii.ca/t/84fj Victims of Crime Act]'', RSBC 1996, c 478, helps ensure victims’ views and concerns do not go unnoticed. The ''[https://laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-23.7/FullText.html Canadian Victims’ Bill of Rights]'', SC 2015, c 13 guarantees victims’ rights across Canada. Refer to '''[[Introduction to Law for Victims of Crime (4:I)\|Chapter 4: Victims]]''' for more information.

	=== 7. Sex Offenders Information Registration Act ===		=== 7. Sex Offenders Information Registration Act ===

Nate Russell at 20:13, 27 November 2025

2025-11-27T20:13:21Z

LSLAP at 18:56, 13 October 2025

2025-10-13T18:56:20Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:56, 13 October 2025
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{REVIEWED LSLAP \| date= ~~11 August~~ 2025}}		{{REVIEWED LSLAP \| date= 16 July 2025}}
	{{LSLAP Manual TOC\|expanded = youth}}		{{LSLAP Manual TOC\|expanded = youth}}

LSLAP: /* 6. Victims */

2025-09-27T09:12:57Z

6. Victims

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:12, 27 September 2025
Line 448:		Line 448:
	Amendments to the ''Criminal Code'' have aimed to enhance victim’s roles in the criminal justice system. The ''YCJA'' similarly aims to enhance the role of victims. This is demonstrated by the references to victims’ rights in the ''YCJA''’s principles under section 3 , and the sentencing requirement to consider harm done to victims (''YCJA'' s 38(3)(b)).		Amendments to the ''Criminal Code'' have aimed to enhance victim’s roles in the criminal justice system. The ''YCJA'' similarly aims to enhance the role of victims. This is demonstrated by the references to victims’ rights in the ''YCJA''’s principles under section 3 , and the sentencing requirement to consider harm done to victims (''YCJA'' s 38(3)(b)).

	BC’s victims’ rights legislation, the ''[https://www.bclaws.gov.bc.ca/civix/document/id/complete/statreg/96478_01 Victims of Crime Act]'', RSBC 1996, c 478, helps ensure victims’ views and concerns do not go unnoticed. The ''[https://laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-23.7/FullText.html Canadian Victims’ Bill of Rights]'', SC 2015, c 13 guarantees victims’ rights across Canada. Refer to '''Chapter 4: Victims''' for more information.		BC’s victims’ rights legislation, the ''[https://www.bclaws.gov.bc.ca/civix/document/id/complete/statreg/96478_01 Victims of Crime Act]'', RSBC 1996, c 478, helps ensure victims’ views and concerns do not go unnoticed. The ''[https://laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-23.7/FullText.html Canadian Victims’ Bill of Rights]'', SC 2015, c 13 guarantees victims’ rights across Canada. Refer to '''[[Introduction to Law for Victims of Crime (4:I)\|Chapter 4: Victims]]''' for more information.

	=== 7. Sex Offenders Information Registration Act ===		=== 7. Sex Offenders Information Registration Act ===

LSLAP: /* 5. Mental Health Provisions */

2025-09-27T09:12:27Z

5. Mental Health Provisions

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:12, 27 September 2025
Line 443:		Line 443:
	Only the people described in subsection 119(6) of the ''YCJA'' can have access to s 34 medical and psychological reports.		Only the people described in subsection 119(6) of the ''YCJA'' can have access to s 34 medical and psychological reports.

	For more information on mental illness and the law, see '''Chapter 14: Mental Health Law'''.		For more information on mental illness and the law, see '''[[Introduction to Mental Health and Capacity (14:I)\|Chapter 14: Mental Health Law]]'''.

	=== 6. Victims ===		=== 6. Victims ===

LSLAP: /* 1. Pre-Sentencing Reports and Section 19 Conferences */

2025-09-27T09:08:28Z

1. Pre-Sentencing Reports and Section 19 Conferences

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:08, 27 September 2025
Line 225:		Line 225:
	*The preparation of a pre-sentence report (''YCJA'' s 40);		*The preparation of a pre-sentence report (''YCJA'' s 40);
	*The preparation of a medical, psychiatric, and/or psychological report (''YCJA'' s 34).		*The preparation of a medical, psychiatric, and/or psychological report (''YCJA'' s 34).
	*The preparation of a ''Gladue'' Report for an Indigenous youth according to section 718(e) of the ''Criminal Code'' and the principles set out in [https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/1999/1999canlii679/1999canlii679.html ''R. v. Gladue''], [1999] 1 SCR 688. For more information on ''Gladue'' Reports see '''Chapter 1: Criminal Law'''.		*The preparation of a ''Gladue'' Report for an Indigenous youth according to section 718(e) of the ''Criminal Code'' and the principles set out in [https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/1999/1999canlii679/1999canlii679.html ''R. v. Gladue''], [1999] 1 SCR 688. For more information on ''Gladue'' Reports see '''[[Introduction to Criminal Law (1:I)\|Chapter 1: Criminal Law]]'''.
	*A Section 19 Conference (see Section G.7: Section 19 Conferences above) to provide the court with insight on the young person’s circumstances, and recommendations on an appropriate sentence (''YCJA'' s 41).		*A Section 19 Conference (see Section G.7: Section 19 Conferences above) to provide the court with insight on the young person’s circumstances, and recommendations on an appropriate sentence (''YCJA'' s 41).

LSLAP: /* 3. Proof of Age and Notice */

2025-09-27T09:06:22Z

3. Proof of Age and Notice

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:06, 27 September 2025
Line 150:		Line 150:
	*the court inferring the age of a person from their appearance or statements (''YCJA'' s 148(4)).		*the court inferring the age of a person from their appearance or statements (''YCJA'' s 148(4)).

	The court must also be satisfied that a young person’s parent or guardian has been notified of the charges against the young person. This is typically accomplished by the parent or guardian attending court with the young person and confirming their understanding of the charges on the record, or by defence counsel attesting to having advised the parent or guardian of the charges.		The court must also be satisfied that a young person’s parent or guardian has been notified of the charges against the young person. This is typically accomplished by the parent or guardian attending court with the young person and confirming their understanding of the charges on the record, or by defence counsel attesting to having advised the parent or guardian of the charges. For more information on notice to parents or guardians see '''Section E: Notice to Parents/Guardians''' above.

	=== 4. Pre-Trial Detention and Conditions ===		=== 4. Pre-Trial Detention and Conditions ===

LSLAP: /* 1. Compelling a Young Person’s Appearance in Court */

2025-09-27T09:05:29Z

1. Compelling a Young Person’s Appearance in Court

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:05, 27 September 2025
Line 131:		Line 131:
	The procedure to compel a young person to attend court is generally the same as for adults under the ''Criminal Code''. A police officer may release a young person on either a Promise to Appear (an “Undertaking”) or an Appearance Notice. These documents will indicate a time, date, and location for the young person’s first court appearance.		The procedure to compel a young person to attend court is generally the same as for adults under the ''Criminal Code''. A police officer may release a young person on either a Promise to Appear (an “Undertaking”) or an Appearance Notice. These documents will indicate a time, date, and location for the young person’s first court appearance.

	In [https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onca/doc/2009/2009onca219/2009onca219.html ''R. v. Oliveira'', 2009 ONCA 219] the Ontario Court of Appeal explained that a Promise to Appear and an Undertaking serve two distinct and separate purposes. The purpose of a Promise to Appear is to secure the accused’s initial attendance in Court. In contrast, an Undertaking constitutes a promise by the accused to comply with certain conditions in exchange for their release from custody, pending the resolution of the charges.		In ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onca/doc/2009/2009onca219/2009onca219.html R. v. Oliveira]'', 2009 ONCA 219 the Ontario Court of Appeal explained that a Promise to Appear and an Undertaking serve two distinct and separate purposes. The purpose of a Promise to Appear is to secure the accused’s initial attendance in Court. In contrast, an Undertaking constitutes a promise by the accused to comply with certain conditions in exchange for their release from custody, pending the resolution of the charges.

	If the Information is not laid prior to this first appearance, then the Appearance Notice or the Undertaking will be rendered null. If the Information is laid prior to this first appearance, the Undertaking will continue in force as long as the charges are before the Court (or until it is canceled or varied by a judge).		If the Information is not laid prior to this first appearance, then the Appearance Notice or the Undertaking will be rendered null. If the Information is laid prior to this first appearance, the Undertaking will continue in force as long as the charges are before the Court (or until it is canceled or varied by a judge).

LSLAP: /* 7. Sex Offenders Information Registration Act */

2025-09-25T17:01:54Z

7. Sex Offenders Information Registration Act

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:01, 25 September 2025
Line 451:		Line 451:

	=== 7. Sex Offenders Information Registration Act ===		=== 7. Sex Offenders Information Registration Act ===
	The [https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/S-8.7/page-1.html ''Sex Offenders Information Registration Act'', SC 2004, c 10] (''SOIRA''), helps police investigate sexual crimes by providing them with up-to-date information about convicted sex offenders. ''SOIRA'' imposes an ongoing reporting requirement for sex offenders to provide information regarding their residence, telephone numbers, employment, education, and physical description.		The ''[https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/S-8.7/page-1.html Sex Offenders Information Registration Act]'', SC 2004, c 10 (''SOIRA''), helps police investigate sexual crimes by providing them with up-to-date information about convicted sex offenders. ''SOIRA'' imposes an ongoing reporting requirement for sex offenders to provide information regarding their residence, telephone numbers, employment, education, and physical description.

	Section 490.011(2) of the ''Criminal Code'' provides that ''SOIRA'' applies to young persons only if they receive an adult sentence. Section 7 of ''SOIRA'' allows a sex offender who is under 18 years to choose an adult to be in attendance when they report to a registration centre where information is collected.		Section 490.011(2) of the ''Criminal Code'' provides that ''SOIRA'' applies to young persons only if they receive an adult sentence. Section 7 of ''SOIRA'' allows a sex offender who is under 18 years to choose an adult to be in attendance when they report to a registration centre where information is collected.

LSLAP: /* 6. Victims */

2025-09-25T17:01:21Z

6. Victims

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:01, 25 September 2025
Line 448:		Line 448:
	Amendments to the ''Criminal Code'' have aimed to enhance victim’s roles in the criminal justice system. The ''YCJA'' similarly aims to enhance the role of victims. This is demonstrated by the references to victims’ rights in the ''YCJA''’s principles under section 3 , and the sentencing requirement to consider harm done to victims (''YCJA'' s 38(3)(b)).		Amendments to the ''Criminal Code'' have aimed to enhance victim’s roles in the criminal justice system. The ''YCJA'' similarly aims to enhance the role of victims. This is demonstrated by the references to victims’ rights in the ''YCJA''’s principles under section 3 , and the sentencing requirement to consider harm done to victims (''YCJA'' s 38(3)(b)).

	BC’s victims’ rights legislation, the [https://www.bclaws.gov.bc.ca/civix/document/id/complete/statreg/96478_01 ''Victims of Crime Act'', RSBC 1996, c 478], helps ensure victims’ views and concerns do not go unnoticed. The [https://laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-23.7/FullText.html ''Canadian Victims’ Bill of Rights'', SC 2015, c 13] guarantees victims’ rights across Canada. Refer to '''Chapter 4: Victims''' for more information.		BC’s victims’ rights legislation, the ''[https://www.bclaws.gov.bc.ca/civix/document/id/complete/statreg/96478_01 Victims of Crime Act]'', RSBC 1996, c 478, helps ensure victims’ views and concerns do not go unnoticed. The ''[https://laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-23.7/FullText.html Canadian Victims’ Bill of Rights]'', SC 2015, c 13 guarantees victims’ rights across Canada. Refer to '''Chapter 4: Victims''' for more information.

	=== 7. Sex Offenders Information Registration Act ===		=== 7. Sex Offenders Information Registration Act ===

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:13, 27 November 2025
Line 131:		Line 131:
	The procedure to compel a young person to attend court is generally the same as for adults under the ''Criminal Code''. A police officer may release a young person on either a Promise to Appear (an “Undertaking”) or an Appearance Notice. These documents will indicate a time, date, and location for the young person’s first court appearance.		The procedure to compel a young person to attend court is generally the same as for adults under the ''Criminal Code''. A police officer may release a young person on either a Promise to Appear (an “Undertaking”) or an Appearance Notice. These documents will indicate a time, date, and location for the young person’s first court appearance.

	In ''[https://~~www.~~canlii.~~org/en/on~~/~~onca~~/~~doc/2009/2009onca219/2009onca219.html~~ R. v. Oliveira]'', 2009 ONCA 219 the Ontario Court of Appeal explained that a Promise to Appear and an Undertaking serve two distinct and separate purposes. The purpose of a Promise to Appear is to secure the accused’s initial attendance in Court. In contrast, an Undertaking constitutes a promise by the accused to comply with certain conditions in exchange for their release from custody, pending the resolution of the charges.		In ''[https://canlii.ca/t/22qlw R. v. Oliveira]'', 2009 ONCA 219 the Ontario Court of Appeal explained that a Promise to Appear and an Undertaking serve two distinct and separate purposes. The purpose of a Promise to Appear is to secure the accused’s initial attendance in Court. In contrast, an Undertaking constitutes a promise by the accused to comply with certain conditions in exchange for their release from custody, pending the resolution of the charges.

	If the Information is not laid prior to this first appearance, then the Appearance Notice or the Undertaking will be rendered null. If the Information is laid prior to this first appearance, the Undertaking will continue in force as long as the charges are before the Court (or until it is canceled or varied by a judge).		If the Information is not laid prior to this first appearance, then the Appearance Notice or the Undertaking will be rendered null. If the Information is laid prior to this first appearance, the Undertaking will continue in force as long as the charges are before the Court (or until it is canceled or varied by a judge).
Line 197:		Line 197:
	Young persons can waive their rights to consult with counsel or with a parent or guardian. However, for the waiver to be valid, it must be either recorded by video or audio, or in a written statement signed by the young person (''YCJA'' s 146(4)). If these requirements are not met due to a “technical irregularity,” a Youth Justice Court can still find that the waiver was valid if the Court is “satisfied that the young person was informed of his or her rights, and voluntarily waived them” (''YCJA'' s 146(5)). If the Court is satisfied that the waiver occurred, then the Court may admit into evidence a statement made to a person in authority, if doing so “would not bring into disrepute the principle that young persons are entitled to enhanced procedural protection to ensure that they are treated fairly, and their rights are protected” (''YCJA'' s 146(6)).		Young persons can waive their rights to consult with counsel or with a parent or guardian. However, for the waiver to be valid, it must be either recorded by video or audio, or in a written statement signed by the young person (''YCJA'' s 146(4)). If these requirements are not met due to a “technical irregularity,” a Youth Justice Court can still find that the waiver was valid if the Court is “satisfied that the young person was informed of his or her rights, and voluntarily waived them” (''YCJA'' s 146(5)). If the Court is satisfied that the waiver occurred, then the Court may admit into evidence a statement made to a person in authority, if doing so “would not bring into disrepute the principle that young persons are entitled to enhanced procedural protection to ensure that they are treated fairly, and their rights are protected” (''YCJA'' s 146(6)).

	Unique to the youth context, “persons in authority” under section 146 of the YCJA may include teachers, parents, or other authority figures in a young person’s life, depending on the circumstances: see for example [https://~~www.~~canlii.~~org/en/bc/bcpc/doc/2006~~/~~2006bcpc240~~/~~2006bcpc240.html~~ ''R. v. G.F.D., B.A.S. and P.J.B.''], 2006 BCPC 240; [https://~~www.~~canlii.~~org/en/on~~/~~oncj~~/~~doc/2009/2009oncj333/2009oncj333.html~~ ''R. v. S.(R.) et al''], 2009 ONCJ 333. While subsection 146(9) under the ''YCJA'' holds that the parent or other adult who a young person consults with are not persons in authority, this presumption can be displaced by “evidence to the contrary”.		Unique to the youth context, “persons in authority” under section 146 of the YCJA may include teachers, parents, or other authority figures in a young person’s life, depending on the circumstances: see for example [https://canlii.ca/t/1nl7q ''R. v. G.F.D., B.A.S. and P.J.B.''], 2006 BCPC 240; [https://canlii.ca/t/24t2c ''R. v. S.(R.) et al''], 2009 ONCJ 333. While subsection 146(9) under the ''YCJA'' holds that the parent or other adult who a young person consults with are not persons in authority, this presumption can be displaced by “evidence to the contrary”.

	In [https://~~www.~~canlii.~~org/en/bc~~/~~bcsc~~/~~doc/2010/2010bcsc1715/2010bcsc1715.html~~ ''R. v. A.D.''], 2010 BCSC 1715 (''AD''), a 15-year-old accused’s statement was ruled inadmissible for non-compliance with section 146(2)(d) of the YCJA. At para 24, Justice Stromberg-Stein held that		In [https://canlii.ca/t/2dpvh ''R. v. A.D.''], 2010 BCSC 1715 (''AD''), a 15-year-old accused’s statement was ruled inadmissible for non-compliance with section 146(2)(d) of the YCJA. At para 24, Justice Stromberg-Stein held that
	:[i]nforming a young person they are entitled to have a lawyer or third party with whom they have consulted present, rather than phrasing this as a requirement, is ‘deficient’ and ‘not completely accurate’, as s 146 draws an important distinction between the rights of the young person and the requirements placed upon the police [emphasis original; citations omitted].		:[i]nforming a young person they are entitled to have a lawyer or third party with whom they have consulted present, rather than phrasing this as a requirement, is ‘deficient’ and ‘not completely accurate’, as s 146 draws an important distinction between the rights of the young person and the requirements placed upon the police [emphasis original; citations omitted].
	In ''AD'', counsel for the accused was out of town and unable to immediately come to the police station where the accused was detained. Although the police informed AD of his right to have his lawyer present during the interview, it was clear that they were going to interview him that same day, regardless of his lawyer’s availability.		In ''AD'', counsel for the accused was out of town and unable to immediately come to the police station where the accused was detained. Although the police informed AD of his right to have his lawyer present during the interview, it was clear that they were going to interview him that same day, regardless of his lawyer’s availability.

	The ''YCJA'' does not specify the standard of proof the Crown must meet to show compliance with section 146. In [https://~~www.~~canlii.~~org/en/~~ca/~~scc~~/~~doc/2008/2008scc49/2008scc49.html~~ ''R. v. L.T.H.''], 2008 SCC 49 (''LTH'') the Supreme Court of Canada stated each component of section 146 must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. If a young person has been interviewed, Crown must prove the person taking the young person’s statement took reasonable steps to ensure the young person understood their rights (''LTH'' at para 6). Simply reading a standardized form will likely not fulfill the requirements of section 146(2)(b). The person in authority must make reasonable efforts to determine that young person’s level of comprehension to ensure their explanation is appropriate.		The ''YCJA'' does not specify the standard of proof the Crown must meet to show compliance with section 146. In [https://canlii.ca/t/20m8f ''R. v. L.T.H.''], 2008 SCC 49 (''LTH'') the Supreme Court of Canada stated each component of section 146 must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. If a young person has been interviewed, Crown must prove the person taking the young person’s statement took reasonable steps to ensure the young person understood their rights (''LTH'' at para 6). Simply reading a standardized form will likely not fulfill the requirements of section 146(2)(b). The person in authority must make reasonable efforts to determine that young person’s level of comprehension to ensure their explanation is appropriate.

	The majority in ''LTH'' found that the police officer, when reading the accused his rights, failed to consider that the accused had a learning disability. As a result, the statement was found inadmissible. The Court also noted that Crown Counsel does not have to prove the young person actually understood the rights explained to them. If the judge is satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the young person’s rights and options were explained as required by section 146, the judge may infer the young person understood those rights and the consequences of waiving them. The burden then shifts to the defence to point to evidence showing the young person did not, in fact, understand their rights or the consequences of waiving those rights (''LTH'' at para 48).		The majority in ''LTH'' found that the police officer, when reading the accused his rights, failed to consider that the accused had a learning disability. As a result, the statement was found inadmissible. The Court also noted that Crown Counsel does not have to prove the young person actually understood the rights explained to them. If the judge is satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the young person’s rights and options were explained as required by section 146, the judge may infer the young person understood those rights and the consequences of waiving them. The burden then shifts to the defence to point to evidence showing the young person did not, in fact, understand their rights or the consequences of waiving those rights (''LTH'' at para 48).
Line 225:		Line 225:
	*The preparation of a pre-sentence report (''YCJA'' s 40);		*The preparation of a pre-sentence report (''YCJA'' s 40);
	*The preparation of a medical, psychiatric, and/or psychological report (''YCJA'' s 34).		*The preparation of a medical, psychiatric, and/or psychological report (''YCJA'' s 34).
	*The preparation of a ''Gladue'' Report for an Indigenous youth according to section 718(e) of the ''Criminal Code'' and the principles set out in [https://~~www.~~canlii.~~org/en/~~ca/~~scc~~/~~doc/1999/1999canlii679/1999canlii679.html~~ ''R. v. Gladue''], [1999] 1 SCR 688. For more information on ''Gladue'' Reports see '''[[Introduction to Criminal Law (1:I)\|Chapter 1: Criminal Law]]'''.		*The preparation of a ''Gladue'' Report for an Indigenous youth according to section 718(e) of the ''Criminal Code'' and the principles set out in [https://canlii.ca/t/1fqp2 ''R. v. Gladue''], [1999] 1 SCR 688. For more information on ''Gladue'' Reports see '''[[Introduction to Criminal Law (1:I)\|Chapter 1: Criminal Law]]'''.
	*A Section 19 Conference (see Section G.7: Section 19 Conferences above) to provide the court with insight on the young person’s circumstances, and recommendations on an appropriate sentence (''YCJA'' s 41).		*A Section 19 Conference (see Section G.7: Section 19 Conferences above) to provide the court with insight on the young person’s circumstances, and recommendations on an appropriate sentence (''YCJA'' s 41).

Line 244:		Line 244:
	'''Note:''' Unlike for adult offenders, general deterrence is not a sentencing objective under the ''YCJA''.		'''Note:''' Unlike for adult offenders, general deterrence is not a sentencing objective under the ''YCJA''.

	Although all principles listed under section 38(2) must be considered during sentencing, the BC Court of Appeal has held that there is a limited hierarchy between them and cautioned that the youth sentencing regime “is not entirely ‘offender-centric’” ([https://~~www.~~canlii.~~org~~/en/~~bc/bcca/doc/2013/2013bcca379/2013bcca379.html''~~ R. v. S.N.J.S.''], 2013 BCCA 379 (''SNJS'') at paras 27 to 29). In ''SNJS'', the Court held that, to the extent there is any hierarchy within the principles, proportionality is at the top of that hierarchy (at para 27). The Court reviewed the relationship between subsections 38(2)(d) & (e) and subsection 38(2)(c), and held that s 38(2)(e) is subject to s 38(2)(c), and s 38(2)(d) cannot be read “independently from the other purposes and principles” in the ''YCJA'' (''SNJS'' at paras 26 to 29). The Court also held that the three principles in subsection 38(2)(e) must be weighted equally, with no hierarchy between them. The judge must consider all of those requirements, along with the other principles in subsection 38(2) and section 3 of the ''YCJA'', in determining a sentence (''SNJS'' at para 27).		Although all principles listed under section 38(2) must be considered during sentencing, the BC Court of Appeal has held that there is a limited hierarchy between them and cautioned that the youth sentencing regime “is not entirely ‘offender-centric’” (''[https://canlii.ca/t/g07bl R. v. S.N.J.S.]'', 2013 BCCA 379 (''SNJS'') at paras 27 to 29). In ''SNJS'', the Court held that, to the extent there is any hierarchy within the principles, proportionality is at the top of that hierarchy (at para 27). The Court reviewed the relationship between subsections 38(2)(d) & (e) and subsection 38(2)(c), and held that s 38(2)(e) is subject to s 38(2)(c), and s 38(2)(d) cannot be read “independently from the other purposes and principles” in the ''YCJA'' (''SNJS'' at paras 26 to 29). The Court also held that the three principles in subsection 38(2)(e) must be weighted equally, with no hierarchy between them. The judge must consider all of those requirements, along with the other principles in subsection 38(2) and section 3 of the ''YCJA'', in determining a sentence (''SNJS'' at para 27).

	Subsection 38(3) of the ''YCJA'' lists the factors which the Youth Justice Court must consider when determining a youth sentence:		Subsection 38(3) of the ''YCJA'' lists the factors which the Youth Justice Court must consider when determining a youth sentence:
Line 288:		Line 288:
	*“[A]ny other conditions that the court considers appropriate”, as long as they meet the requirements set out in ''YCJA'' s 38(2)(e.1) (''YCJA'' s 42(2)(s)).		*“[A]ny other conditions that the court considers appropriate”, as long as they meet the requirements set out in ''YCJA'' s 38(2)(e.1) (''YCJA'' s 42(2)(s)).

	The two-part test for discharges outlined in section 730 of the ''Criminal Code'' that applies to adult offenders (that a discharge must be in the best interest of the accused and not contrary to the public interest), only applies to absolute discharges for youths ([https://~~www.~~canlii.~~org/en/on/oncj/doc/2004~~/~~2004oncj190~~/~~2004oncj190.html~~ ''R. v. R.P.''], 2004 ONCJ 190). The test is not applicable when considering a conditional discharge for young persons ([https://~~www.~~canlii.~~org/en/ab/abca/doc/2004~~/~~2004abca352~~/~~2004abca352.html~~ ''R. v. C.S.W.''], 2004 ABCA 352). Furthermore, unlike adult offenders, subsection 42(11) of the ''YCJA'' prohibits a probation order from being combined with a conditional discharge for youths.		The two-part test for discharges outlined in section 730 of the ''Criminal Code'' that applies to adult offenders (that a discharge must be in the best interest of the accused and not contrary to the public interest), only applies to absolute discharges for youths ([https://canlii.ca/t/1htpc ''R. v. R.P.''], 2004 ONCJ 190). The test is not applicable when considering a conditional discharge for young persons ([https://canlii.ca/t/1j31j ''R. v. C.S.W.''], 2004 ABCA 352). Furthermore, unlike adult offenders, subsection 42(11) of the ''YCJA'' prohibits a probation order from being combined with a conditional discharge for youths.

	Adult offenders who receive a conditional discharge are “deemed not to have been convicted” (''Criminal Code'' s 730(3)). Youths are “deemed not to have been found guilty or convicted” once their sentence or order has “ceased to have effect” (''YCJA'' s 82). This applies to any youth sentence, not only absolute or conditional discharges. Note however that prior findings of guilty may still be considered in some circumstances, such as future sentencing or bail hearings, subject to access periods. Under subsection 119(2) of the ''YCJA'' the records access period for a conditional discharge is longer than for an absolute discharge, but shorter than the access period for other sentences (for more information see '''Section K.4: Records: Access and Disclosure''' below).		Adult offenders who receive a conditional discharge are “deemed not to have been convicted” (''Criminal Code'' s 730(3)). Youths are “deemed not to have been found guilty or convicted” once their sentence or order has “ceased to have effect” (''YCJA'' s 82). This applies to any youth sentence, not only absolute or conditional discharges. Note however that prior findings of guilty may still be considered in some circumstances, such as future sentencing or bail hearings, subject to access periods. Under subsection 119(2) of the ''YCJA'' the records access period for a conditional discharge is longer than for an absolute discharge, but shorter than the access period for other sentences (for more information see '''Section K.4: Records: Access and Disclosure''' below).