R v DAJH, 2018 MBCA 77

Citation: R v DAJH, 2018 MBCA 77 Date: 20180821 Docket: AY18-30-09063 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF MANITOBA Coram: Chief Justice Richard J. Chartier Madam Justice Diana M. Cameron Mr. Justice William J. Burnett BETWEEN : HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN ) S. L. Bracken ) for the Appellant Respondent ) ) A. Y. Kotler - and - ) for the Respondent ) D. A. J.

H. ) Written joint submission filed: ) July 31, 2018 (Young Person) Appellant ) ) Judgment delivered: ) August 21, 2018 NOTICE OF RESTRICTION ON PUBLICATION : No one may publish any information that could identify a person as having been dealt with under the Youth Criminal Justice Act (see section 110(1)). NOTICE OF RESTRICTION ON PUBLICATION : No one may publish any information that could identify any child victim or child witness that is connected with an offence committed by a young person that is being dealt with under the Youth Criminal Justice Act (s ee section 111(1)).

Chartier CJM (for the Court): [ 1 ] This is a sentence appeal. The young person was sentenced to a one-year deferred custody and supervision order (the DCSO) followed by 12 months of supervised probation with conditions. The sentencing judge also made a number of ancillary orders. [ 2 ] The young person appeals on the ground that the sentencing judge imposed an illegal sentence. He correctly points out that, pursuant to section 42(2)(

p) of the Youth Criminal Justice Act (the YCJA ), DCSOs cannot be imposed for periods exceeding six months. The young person asks that the DCSO be varied to the maximum six-month period and that all other aspects of the sentence remain the same. [ 3 ] The Crown does not oppose the young person’s sentence appeal.

The parties have filed a joint factum and consent to conducting this appeal in writing, without an oral hearing. [ 4 ] At the sentencing hearing, the parties agreed that the specialized treatment program offered for youthful sex offenders by the Macdonald Youth Services, the Edgewood Program, offered the best chance of achieving the goals set out in sections 3 and 38 of the YCJA for this young person. They submit that the sentencing judge was of the same mind and that was the reason she imposed the DCSO.

We are all of the view that a fair reading of the parties’ submissions and the sentencing judge’s reasons bear this out. [ 5 ] Accordingly, leave to appeal sentence is granted and the appeal is allowed only to the extent that the one-year DCSO is varied to the maximum six-month term. The conditions of the DCSO remain unchanged. Finally, the order of supervised probation, along with the ancillary orders imposed at sentencing, remain the same.

CJM JA JA