Background
J.P. pleaded guilty to possessing a prohibited device: a high-capacity gun magazine, contrary to s. 92(2) of the Criminal Code. During a May 2024 police search of a Thunder Bay residence, police found J.P. carrying the magazine and ammunition.
At sentencing, the parties agreed that custody was available. The Crown sought 12 months of secure custody, while the defence sought six months of open custody. The youth court imposed 12 months of open custody followed by 12 months of probation, along with ancillary orders.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeal granted leave to appeal sentence and allowed the appeal. It held that the youth court imposed an illegal custodial sentence by ordering 12 months of custody without dividing the term between custody and community supervision as required by s. 42(2)(n) of the Youth Criminal Justice Act.
A deferred custody and supervision order under s. 42(2)(p) was unavailable because it could not exceed six months. The applicable custody and supervision order under s. 42(2)(n) required a custodial period followed by a community-supervision period one-half as long—effectively two-thirds custody and one-third supervision. The court varied the sentence to eight months of open custody followed by four months of community supervision. No other aspect of the sentence was changed.
Key Takeaways
- A youth custody and supervision order under s. 42(2)(n) of the YCJA must expressly apportion the sentence between custody and community supervision.
- The community-supervision period must be one-half the length of the custodial period.
- An appellate court may vary an illegal youth sentence to impose the mandatory statutory structure while leaving the remainder of the sentence intact.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that youth custodial sentences must conform to the precise framework in the YCJA, even where the parties agree that custody is appropriate. A judge cannot impose a standalone custodial term where the statute requires a combined custody-and-community-supervision order.
For counsel, the case highlights the need to identify the specific YCJA sentencing provision being used and to ensure that the order states both mandatory components and their required proportions.