R. v. E.A.M.T., 2011 NBCA 20
Opinion
COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW BRUNSWICK 153-10-CA HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN APPELLANT SA MAJESTÉ LA REINE APPELANTE - and - - et - E.A.M.T. RESPONDENT E.A.M.T. INTIMÉE R. v. E.A.M.T., 2011 NBCA 20 R. c.
E.A.M.T., 2011 NBCA 20 CORAM: The Honourable Justice Robertson The Honourable Justice Bell The Honourable Justice Green CORAM : L’honorable juge Robertson L’honorable juge Bell L’honorable juge Green Appeal from a decision of the Youth Justice Court: October 27, 2010 Appel d’une décision du tribunal pour adolescents : Le 27 octobre 2010 History of Case: Historique de la cause : Decision under appeal: Unreported Décision frappée d’appel : Inédite Preliminary or incidental proceedings: N/A Procédures préliminaires ou accessoires : S/O Appeal heard: February 14, 2011 Appel entendu : Le 14 février 2011 Judgment rendered: February 14, 2011 Jugement rendu : Le 14 février 2011
Counsel at hearing: For the appellant: Lindsay J. Schriver For the respondent: E.A.M.T. appeared in person Avocats à l’audience : Pour l’appelante : Lindsay J. Schriver Pour l’intimée : E.A.M.T. a comparu en personne THE COURT The appeal is allowed and the matter remitted to the judge for disposition in a manner consistent with these reasons. LA COUR L’appel est accueilli et l’affaire est renvoyée au juge afin qu’il rende une décision conforme aux présents motifs de jugement.
The following is the judgment delivered by THE COURT (Orally) [ 1 ] The youth court judge found that the respondent had breached certain terms of her deferred custody and supervision order. The judge then granted an order under s. 109(2) (
b) of the Youth Criminal Justice Act , S.C. 2002, c. 1. The sole issue raised on this appeal is whether the judge had the authority to issue an order under that section. In light of the fact that s. 109(2) (
b) expressly states “in a case other than a deferred custody and supervision order”, it is clear the judge lacked the authority to issue an order under that section. This is consistent with the following jurisprudence: R. v. E.S. , 2003 BCPC 432 , [2003] B.C.J. No. 2954 (QL), R. v. C.L. , [2010] N.J. No. 254 (P.C.) (QL) , and R. v. D.A. , 2008 NSCA 75 , [2008] N.S.J. No. 345 (QL). Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the matter remitted to the judge for a disposition in a manner consistent with these reasons and according to law. _____________________________________ J.T.
ROBERTSON, J.A. ______________________________________ B. RICHARD BELL, J.A. _______________________________________ BRADLEY V. GREEN, J.A.
Loading document…