Murray Wood: Western separation talk borders on the absurd
Western separation isn't new, as Murray Wood reminds us. From fringe parties in the 1980s to bizarre border ideas today,...
OTTAWA — The Supreme Court of Canada on Friday upheld the sentence handed to one youth offender but overturned another, in parallel judgments that clarify the standard courts should use when determining whether a youth should be sentenced as an adult.
In the two separate cases, the youth, who were 16 and 17 years old at the time of their offences, were convicted of first degree murder and sentenced as adults to life in prison with no chance of parole for 10 years.
While adults convicted of first degree murder are not eligible for parole for 25 years, a youth who is convicted of the same offence and sentenced as an adult is eligible for parole after 10 years.
Both appealed being handed adult sentences. In the two decisions released as companion judgments on Friday, the Supreme Court said in determining if a youth should be sentenced as an adult, a Crown must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the youth has the developmental age and capacity to make moral judgments like an adult.
It said when courts are determining whether the prosecutor has made that case, they shouldn’t consider how serious the offence is. The law also states that the prosecutor must prove that a youth sentence is inappropriate to hold the offender to account for their crimes.
Under the Youth Criminal Justice Act, youth have what is known as a presumption of diminished moral blameworthiness, and the sentencing provisions are less strict than for adults.
To seek an adult sentence instead, “the Crown must satisfy the court that the young offender’s developmental profile is inconsistent with that presumed of a typical youth in that they possess adult‑like maturity, capacity for moral judgment, and independence,” the decision said.
The court said the standard was met in the case of the 16-year-old who was convicted of the murder of another 16-year-old. In that case, the youth acted as the shooter, “directed his co‑accused to assist with covering up the murder, and he expressed a desire to kill a co‑accused who had witnessed the murder as well as the co‑accused’s mother and sister.”
The Supreme Court decision concluded that the “whole of the evidence demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt that (the youth’s) developmental age was akin to that of an adult” and that the lower court “properly concluded that the presumption was rebutted.”
In the second case, the Court ruled the standard for an adult sentence was not met, and overturned it, ordering that a youth sentence be applied instead.
That youth was 17 years old when he, along with several others, attempted to rob firearms from a victim. That victim, who was also 17 years old, died from multiple knife wounds sustained during the altercation.
In that case, the Crown didn’t prove beyond a reasonable doubt the presumption of diminished moral culpability shouldn’t apply, the Supreme Court said Friday.
There was evidence showing the youth had a difficult upbringing and mental health problems that affected his developmental age, the decision outlined. He saw his behaviour during the robbery as a chance to show his worth as a criminal to adult peers, it said, and later “imprudently recounted his wrongful conduct to a schoolmate.”
These facts “reflected signs of incautious bravado, lack of adult‑like reasoning and immature susceptibility to untoward adult influence at the time of the offence,” the court said.
It imposed the maximum youth sentence for first degree murder, which is six years of custody and four years of custodial supervision.
This report by The Canadian Press was first published July 18, 2025.
Anja Karadeglija, The Canadian Press
