Abstract
Questions of time, culpability and rehabilitation permeate youth criminal law. This paper examines competing claims about time and justice in R. v. P. (C.), a recent decision of the Supreme Court of Canada upholding a leave requirement for youth appeals in circumstances where adults enjoy an appeal as of right. In light of the relatively low stakes of the case in terms of actual appellate practice, I question why the majority worked so hard, often at the expense of logic, to deny a formal equality claim that would have changed little in reality. I argue that an enduring, if unstated, sense that the state’s relationship to young people is qualitatively different to its relationship to adults helps to explain the outcome in P. (C.). If a prevailing vision of the adult criminal system is one of a “battle” pitting the state against individuals, with the accused afforded procedural protections to offset state power, an alternative vision of the youth system as welfarist, rehabilitative, even “familial,” exists alongside it. This paper develops this argument by tracing the genealogy and evolution of youth appellate rights and expediency claims over the course of the 20th and 21st centuries. I show how even as the youth system underwent a “rights revolution” that tracked and eventually exceeded that of adults, the system’s paternalistic moorings continue to yield unexpected exercises of deference to Parliament.
Citation Information
Kelly, Lisa M..
"Judging Youth Time."
The Supreme Court Law Review: Osgoode’s Annual Constitutional Cases Conference
108.
(2023).
DOI: https://doi.org/10.60082/2563-8505.1436
https://digitalcommons.osgoode.yorku.ca/sclr/vol108/iss1/5
Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 4.0 License.
References
1 See Canadian Paediatric Society, "Effective Discipline for Children" (2004) 9 Paediatric Child Health 37 at 37 ("To be effective, discipline needs to be . . . consistent, close to the behaviour needing change; perceived as 'fair' by the child; developmentally and temperamentally appropriate; and self-enhancing, i.e., ultimately leading to self discipline.") [Emphasis added]. https://doi.org/10.1093/pch/9.1.37
2 R. v. P. (C.), [2021] S.C.J. No. 19, 2021 SCC 19 (S.C.C.) [hereinafter "P. (C.)"].
3 Youth Criminal Justice Act, S.C. 2002, c. 1 [hereinafter "YCJA"].
4 Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Part I of the Constitution Act, 1982, being Schedule B to the Canada Act 1982 (U.K.), 1982, c. 11 [hereinafter "Charter"].
5 Herbert Packer, The Limits of the Criminal Sanction (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1968) at 154. See also Herbert Packer, "Two Models of the Criminal Process" (1964) 113 U Pa. L. Rev. 1.
6 Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46.
7 R. v. P. (C.), [2021] S.C.J. No. 19, 2021 SCC 19 at para. 157 (S.C.C.), per Wagner C.J.C.
8 R. v. P. (C.), [2021] S.C.J. No. 19, 2021 SCC 19 at para. 158 (S.C.C.).
9 R. v. P. (C.), [2021] S.C.J. No. 19, 2021 SCC 19 at para. 158 (S.C.C.).
10 I have written about judicial work - analogizing or distinguishing precedents, framing an issue as one that should or should not invite judicial deference, or casting a right at a higher or lower level of generality - as a way in which ideologies find legal form. See Lisa M. Kelly, "The Work of Ideology in Canadian Legal Thought" (2016) 74 S.C.L.R. 27. See also Duncan Kennedy, "Freedom and Constraint in Adjudication: A Critical Phenomenology" (1986) 36 J. Legal Ed. 518.
11 See R. v. P. (C.), [2021] S.C.J. No. 19, 2021 SCC 19 at para. 176 (S.C.C.), per Kasirer J. concurring (citing Professor P.W. Hogg with respect to age-based legal distinctions: "a minority defined by age is much less likely to suffer from the prejudice of the majority than a minority defined by race or religion or any other characteristic that the majority has never possessed and will never possess" (Constitutional Law of Canada, 5th ed. Supp., vol. 2 at p.55-66) and para. 142, per Wagner C.J.C.
12 Justice Abella wrote in dissent that slippery slope concerns raised at oral argument about future challenges to the YCJA are incompatible with the purpose of the Charter and would require the Court to rule on hypothetical future claims rather than the case before it. See R. v. P. (C.), [2021] S.C.J. No. 19, 2021 SCC 19 at paras. 110-116 (S.C.C.), per Abella J. dissenting. With respect to appellate rights, Wagner C.J.C. wrote (at para. 133): "This Court has steadfastsly affirmed in various contexts that 'there is no constitutional right to an appeal' let alone an automatic one at the apex of the justice system . . . ."
13 See R. v. P. (C.), [2021] S.C.J. No. 19, 2021 SCC 19 at para. 135 (S.C.C.), per Wagner C.J.C.
14 I draw here from the work of legal sociologist John Griffiths who argued that Herbert Packer's classic "due process" versus "crime control" models were based on an unstated ideological vision of the criminal system as a site of "battle." Griffths argued that an unrealized alternative vision might be a "family model," which he noted was professed rhetorically but never realized by the juvenile court movement. See John Griffiths, "Ideology in Criminal Procedure or A Third 'Model' of the Criminal Process" (1970) 79 Yale L.J. 359.
https://doi.org/10.2307/795141
15 For a critical discussion on the gap between the rhetorical ideals of the American juvenile court movement and the working of the system in practice, see Francis A. Allen, "The Juvenile Court and the Limits of Juvenile Justice" in S. Fox, ed., Modern Juvenile Justice (St. Paul, Minn.: West, 1972) at 167.
16 American literature tends to use the language of "due process revolution" to describe a series of judicial decisions that expanded procedural rights for criminal defendants, including juveniles. See Fred P. Graham, The Due Process Revolution: The Warren Court's Impact on Criminal Law (New York: Hayden Book Co., 1970).
17 Juvenile Delinquents Act, S.C. 1908, c. 40 [hereinafter "JDA"].
18 Young Offenders Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. Y-1 [rep.] [hereinafter "YOA"].
19 R. v. C. (T.L.), [1994] S.C.J. No. 70, [1994] 2 S.C.R. 1012 (S.C.C.).
20 R. v. P. (C.), [2021] S.C.J. No. 19, 2021 SCC 19 (S.C.C.).
21 For a leading history on the Cook County, Illinois juvenile court, including the Campbell case, see David S. Tanenhaus, Juvenile Justice in the Making (Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2004) at 23-24.
22 Juvenile Delinquents Act, S.C. 1908, c. 40 [hereinafter "JDA"].
23 Juvenile Delinquents Act, S.C. 1908, c. 40, s. 31. The JDA was repealed and replaced in 1984 by the Young Offenders Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. Y-1.
24 For a discussion of Progressive-era ideology and advocacy in the context of juvenile delinquency law and courts in the United States, see Barry C. Feld, "Criminalizing Juvenile Justice: Rules of Procedure for the Juvenile Court" (1984) 69:1 Minn. L Rev 141 at 145.
25 See Anthony Platt, The Child Savers: The Invention of Delinquency (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1977).
26 Cited in David S. Tanenhaus, Juvenile Justice in the Making (Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2004) at 2.
27 See J.J. Wilson, "Observations" The Globe (October 19, 1888); "Juvenile Waifs and Strays" The Globe (November 27, 1889), reprinted in J.J. Kelso, ed., Early History of the Humane and Children's Aid Movement in Ontario, 1886-1893 (Toronto: LK Cameron, 1911) at 48-50.
28 See, for example, J.J. Kelso, Laws Affecting Children (Toronto 1895) at 1.
29 See Andrew Doerr, The State and the Reproduction of Social Control: A Study of the History of Canadian Juvenile Justice Reforms (M.A. Thesis, University of Windsor, 1996) at 46 [unpublished].
30 Juvenile Delinquents Act, S.C. 1908, c. 40.
31 See John Griffiths, "Ideology in Criminal Procedure or A Third 'Model' of the Criminal Process" (1970) 79 Yale L.J. 359 at 400-401.
https://doi.org/10.2307/795141
32 Juvenile Delinquents Act, S.C. 1908, c. 40, s. 14.
33 Jean Trépanier, "Juvenile Delinquency and Youth Protection: The Historical Foundations of the Canadian Juvenile Delinquents Act of 1908" (1999) 7 Eur. J. Crime, Crim. Law & Crim. Justice 41 at 61.
https://doi.org/10.1163/15718179920518709
34 The JDA specified that no action of a juvenile court was to be set aside because of any "informality or irregularity where it [appeared] that the disposition of the case was in the best interests of the child." Juvenile Delinquents Act, S.C. 1929, c. 46, ss. 7, 37.
35 House of Commons Debates (July 8, 1908) (Leighton Goldie McCarthy).
36 In cases where a parent or guardian was ordered to pay a fine or give security for a juvenile's good behaviour, the parent or guardian enjoyed the same right of appeal from such an order as if the order had been made on the conviction of the parent or guardian.
37 Peter D. Marshall, "A Comparative Analysis of the Right to Appeal" (2011) 22:1 Duke J. Comp. & Int'l L. 1 at 3.
38 Benjamin L. Berger, "Criminal Appeals as Jury Control: An Anglo-Canadian Historical Perspective on the Rise of Criminal Appeals" (2005) 10 Can. Crim. L.R. 1 at 35.
39 Supreme and Exchequer Court Act, S.C. 1875, c. 11, s. 49; Criminal Code, 1892, 55-56, Vict., c. 29.
40 Nicholas Bala & Sanjeev Anand, Youth Criminal Justice Law, 3d ed. (Toronto: Irwin Law, 2012) at 13. See also Sanjeev S. Anand, "Catalyst for Change: The History of Canadian Juvenile Justice Reform" (1999) 24:2 Queen's L.J. 515 at 537.
41 See Janet Bolton et al., "The Young Offenders Act: Principles and Policy - The First Decade in Review" (1993) 38 McGill L.J. 939 at 947.
42 See Jeffrey S. Leon, "The Development of Canadian Juvenile Justice: A Background for Reform" (1977) Osgoode Hall L.J. 71 at 103.
https://doi.org/10.60082/2817-5069.2141
43 House of Commons Debates (May 20, 1929) (Ernest Lapointe).
44 House of Commons Debates (May 20, 1929) (Richard Bedford).
45 Juvenile Delinquents Act, S.C. 1929, c. 46, s. 37.
46 Supreme Court Act, R.S.C. 1970, c. S-26. See R. v. T.L.C., [1994] S.C.J. No. 70, [1994] 2 S.C.R. 1012 at 1016 (S.C.C.).
47 Hermann Mannheim, "The Juvenile Court: Its Procedure" in Margaret Fry et al., Lawless Youth: A Challenge to the New Europe (London: George Allen & Unwin Ltd., 1947) at 50.
48 See Roger Hood, "Hermann Mannheim and Max Grünhut: Criminological Pioneers in London and Oxford" (2004) 44:4 British J. of Criminology 469 at 487; Paul Rock, "Introduction: The Emergence of Criminological Theory" in Paul Rock, ed., History of Criminology (Aldershot: Dartmouth Publishing Co., 1994) at xviii.
https://doi.org/10.1093/bjc/azh030
49 Hermann Mannheim, "The Juvenile Court: Its Procedure" in Margaret Fry et al., Lawless Youth: A Challenge to the New Europe (London: George Allen & Unwin Ltd., 1947) at 77.
50 Hermann Mannheim, "The Juvenile Court: Its Procedure" in Margaret Fry et al., Lawless Youth: A Challenge to the New Europe (London: George Allen & Unwin Ltd., 1947).
51 Hermann Mannheim, "The Juvenile Court: Its Procedure" in Margaret Fry et al., Lawless Youth: A Challenge to the New Europe (London: George Allen & Unwin Ltd., 1947).
52 Roscoe Pound, "The Juvenile Court in the Service State" in Current Approaches to Delinquency (National Probation and Parole Association, 1949), reprinted in (1964) 10 Crime & Delinquency 516 at 519.
https://doi.org/10.1177/001112876401000412
53 See Roscoe Pound, "The Scope and Purpose of Sociological Jurisprudence" (1912) 25 Harv. L. Rev. 56 https://doi.org/10.2307/1324392; Julius Stone, "Roscoe Pound and Sociological Jurisprudence" (1965) 78 Harv. L. Rev. 1578. https://doi.org/10.2307/1338955
54 Roscoe Pound, "The Juvenile Court in the Service State" in Current Approaches to Delinquency (National Probation and Parole Association, 1949), reprinted in (1964) 10 Crime & Delinquency 516 at 522. https://doi.org/10.1177/001112876401000412
55 Roscoe Pound, "The Juvenile Court in the Service State" in Current Approaches to Delinquency (National Probation and Parole Association, 1949), reprinted in (1964) 10 Crime & Delinquency 516 at 516. https://doi.org/10.1177/001112876401000412
56 Roscoe Pound, "The Juvenile Court in the Service State" in Current Approaches to Delinquency (National Probation and Parole Association, 1949), reprinted in (1964) 10 Crime & Delinquency 516 at 528. https://doi.org/10.1177/001112876401000412
57 Sanjeev S. Anand, "Catalyst for Change: The History of Canadian Juvenile Justice Reform" (1999) 24:2 Queen's L.J. 515 at 539-540.
58 Department of Justice, Report of the Department of Justice Committee on Juvenile Delinquency (Ottawa: Queen's Printer, 1965) at 2.
59 See Department of Justice, Report of the Correctional Planning Committee (Ottawa: Queen's Printer, 1961) at 5-6.
60 For a discussion of the MacLeod Report in the context of juvenile law reform, see Christopher Manfredi, "The Young Offenders Act and Juvenile Justice in the United States" (1991) 6 Can. J. L. & Soc. 45 at 49-50 https://doi.org/10.1017/S0829320100001915; Sanjeev S. Anand, "Catalyst for Change: The History of Canadian Juvenile Justice Reform" (1999) 24:2 Queen's L.J. 515 at 539-544; Marjorie Montgomery Bowker, "Juvenile Court in Retrospect: Seven Decades of History in Alberta (1913-1984)" (1986) 24:2 Alta. L. Rev. 234 at 249-252. https://doi.org/10.29173/alr1706
61 See Department of Justice, Report of the Department of Justice Committee on Juvenile Delinquency (Ottawa: Queen's Printer, 1965) at 57-58.
62 See, for example, Kent v. United States, 383 U.S. 541 (1966); Re Gault 387 U.S. 1 (1967); Re Winship 397 U.S. 358 (1970).
63 For a history of Re Gault and the advocacy work of the American Civil Liberties Union in the case, see David S. Tanenhaus, The Constitutional Rights of Children: In re Gault and Juvenile Justice (Lawrence, Texas: University of Texas Press, 2011).
64 See Nicholas Bala & Sanjeev Anand, Youth Criminal Justice Law, 3d ed. (Toronto: Irwin Law, 2012) at 10.
65 Nicholas Bala & Sanjeev Anand, Youth Criminal Justice Law, 3d ed. (Toronto: Irwin Law, 2012) at 11. See also Ronda Bessner, Institutional Child Abuse in Canada (Ottawa: Law Commission of Canada, 1998).
66 See Department of Justice, Report of the Department of Justice Committee on Juvenile Delinquency (Ottawa: Queen's Printer, 1965) at 87-88.
67 Department of Justice, Report of the Department of Justice Committee on Juvenile Delinquency (Ottawa: Queen's Printer, 1965) at 154.
68 Department of Justice, Report of the Department of Justice Committee on Juvenile Delinquency (Ottawa: Queen's Printer, 1965).
69 Department of Justice, Report of the Department of Justice Committee on Juvenile Delinquency (Ottawa: Queen's Printer, 1965), citing Ontario Probation Officers Association, Report on Juvenile Delinquency of the 1962 Legislation Committee (1962) at 7.
70 Department of Justice, Report of the Department of Justice Committee on Juvenile Delinquency (Ottawa: Queen's Printer, 1965) at 154.
71 Department of Justice, Report of the Department of Justice Committee on Juvenile Delinquency (Ottawa: Queen's Printer, 1965) at 162.
72 Department of Justice, Report of the Department of Justice Committee on Juvenile Delinquency (Ottawa: Queen's Printer, 1965) at 155.
73 Department of Justice, Report of the Department of Justice Committee on Juvenile Delinquency (Ottawa: Queen's Printer, 1965) at 154.
74 For a discussion of this interim period, see Sanjeev S. Anand, "Catalyst for Change: The History of Canadian Juvenile Justice Reform" (1999) 24:2 Queen's L.J. 515 at 545-551.
75 See Nicholas Bala & Sanjeev Anand, Youth Criminal Justice Law, 3d ed. (Toronto: Irwin Law, 2012) at 13.
76 Jim Hackler, "An Impressionistic View of Canadian Juvenile Justice: 1965 to 1999" (2001) 20 Can. J. Comm. Mental Health 17 at 17-21. https://doi.org/10.7870/cjcmh-2001-0012
77 See Nicholas Bala & Sanjeev Anand, Youth Criminal Justice Law, 3d ed. (Toronto: Irwin Law, 2012) at 13.
78 Young Offenders Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. Y-1, s. 27(1)(a), (b).
79 House of Commons Debates (May 28, 1981) (Erik Nielsen).
80 House of Commons Debates (May 28, 1981) (Erik Nielsen).
81 House of Commons Debates (May 28, 1981) (Erik Nielsen).
82 Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, s. 691(1)(a).
83 Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, s. 691(2).
84 Under s. 27(5), an appeal to the Supreme Court lay only in regard to adjudication for an indictable offence and not for a disposition, disposition review, or adjudication for a summary conviction offence. Even in these cases, the young person had to receive leave from the Supreme Court within 21 days unless the Court granted an extension for "special reasons." Young Offenders Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. Y-1, s. 27(5). For discussion, see Nicholas Bala & Heino Lilles, The Young Offenders Act Annotated (Ottawa: Ministry of the Solicitor General of Canada Policy Branch, 1982) at 224-225.
85 R. v. C. (T.L.), [1994] B.C.J. No. 149 (B.C.C.A.).
86 R. v. C. (T.L.), [1994] B.C.J. No. 149 at paras. 19-43 (B.C.C.A.), per Rowles J.A. dissenting (citing the rule against multiple convictions for the same delict is set out in R. v. Kienapple, [1974] S.C.J. No. 76, [1975] 1 S.C.R. 729 (S.C.C.)).
87 R. v. C. (T.L.), [1994] S.C.J. No. 70, [1994] 2 S.C.R. 1012 (S.C.C.).
88 R. v. C. (T.L.), [1994] S.C.J. No. 70, [1994] 2 S.C.R. 1012 at 1017 (S.C.C.).
89 Of course, this beneficent ideology need not and did not accord with reality. At the time C. (T.L.) was decided, Canada was sending youth into custody at twice the rate of American courts, even though the youth homicide rate was six times higher in the United States. Most cases going to court under the YOA were minor and most youth being sentenced to custody had committed minor offences. See Department of Justice Canada, A Strategy for the Renewal of Youth Justice (Ottawa: Department of Justice, 1998) at 20; and J. Hornick, Nicholas Bala & Joe Hudson, The Response to Juvenile Crime in the United States: A Canadian Perspective (Calgary: Canadian Research Institute for Law and the Family, 1995); Anthony N. Doob & Jane B. Sprott, "Changing Models of Youth Justice in Canada" in M. Tonry & A.N. Doob, eds., Youth Crime and Youth Justice: Comparative and Cross-national Perspectives (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2004) 185 at 186, 215-217.
90 R. v. C. (T.L.), [1994] S.C.J. No. 70, [1994] 2 S.C.R. 1012 at 1016 (S.C.C.).
https://doi.org/10.1049/cp:19940273
91 R. v. C. (T.L.), [1994] S.C.J. No. 70, [1994] 2 S.C.R. 1012 (S.C.C.).
92 R. v. C. (T.L.), [1994] S.C.J. No. 70, [1994] 2 S.C.R. 1012 (S.C.C.).
93 R. v. C. (T.L.), [1994] S.C.J. No. 70, [1994] 2 S.C.R. 1012 (S.C.C.).
94 R. v. P. (C.), [2019] O.J. No. 664, 2019 ONCA 85 (Ont. C.A.).
95 I focus my analysis on arguments raised in the s. 15 context because it was here that the Court was most divided. Justice Kasirer agreed with the Chief Justice that s. 37(10) does not violate s. 7 of the Charter. Justice Abella, in dissent, did not find it necessary to address s. 7 after finding an unjustified s. 15 violation.
96 R. v. P. (C.), [2021] S.C.J. No. 19, 2021 SCC 19 at para. 144 (S.C.C.).
97 R. v. P. (C.), [2021] S.C.J. No. 19, 2021 SCC 19 at para. 145 (S.C.C.), per Wagner C.J.C.
98 R. v. P. (C.), [2021] S.C.J. No. 19, 2021 SCC 19 at para. 85 (S.C.C.), per Abella J. dissenting.
99 R. v. P. (C.), [2021] S.C.J. No. 19, 2021 SCC 19 at para. 85 (S.C.C.).
https://doi.org/10.19195/1642-5782.19(29).8
100 R. v. P. (C.), [2021] S.C.J. No. 19, 2021 SCC 19 at para. 151 (S.C.C.), per Wagner C.J.C. [emphasis added].
101 R. v. P. (C.), [2021] S.C.J. No. 19, 2021 SCC 19 at para. 148 (S.C.C.). See R. v. M. (K.J.), [2019] S.C.J. No. 55, 2019 SCC 55 (S.C.C.).
102 For a discussion of the additional prejudice of trial delay for young people, see Palma Paciocco, "The Hours are Long: Unreasonable Delay After Jordan" (2017) 81 S.C.L.R. 233 at 248. https://doi.org/10.60082/2563-8505.1355
103 R. v. M. (K.J.), [2019] S.C.J. No. 55, 2019 SCC 55 (S.C.C.). https://doi.org/10.1080/14432471.2019.1600217
104 R. v. P. (C.), [2021] S.C.J. No. 19, 2021 SCC 19 at para. 59 (S.C.C.), per Abella J. dissenting.
105 Peter H. Russell, "The Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of Canada: Present Policies and a Programme for Reform" (1968) 6 Osgoode Hall L.J. 1 at 14. https://doi.org/10.60082/2817-5069.2375
106 R. v. P. (C.), [2021] S.C.J. No. 19, 2021 SCC 19 at para. 201 (S.C.C.), per Kasirer J. concurring.
107 R. v. P. (C.), [2021] S.C.J. No. 19, 2021 SCC 19 at para. 206 (S.C.C.), per Kasirer J. concurring.
108 R. v. P. (C.), [2021] S.C.J. No. 19, 2021 SCC 19 at para. 157 (S.C.C.), per Wagner C.J.C.
109 The British Columbia Civil Liberties Association made this point succinctly in their factum. For a young person not granted leave to appeal, the Crown is effectively suggesting it is better to risk that they may be wrongfully convicted than for their case to be decided in a longer time frame. For those young people who are granted leave to appeal, the Crown is also endorsing an appeal process that will take longer and be more costly than that available to adults. R. v. P. (C.), [2021] S.C.J. No. 19, 2021 SCC 19 (S.C.C.) (Factum of the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association at para. 25).
110 For a discussion of the ethical obligations of prosecutors within this incentive structure of plea bargaining, see Palma Paciocco, "Seeking Justice by Plea: The Prosecutor's Ethical Obligations During Plea Bargaining" (2017) 63:1 McGill L.J. 45.
https://doi.org/10.7202/1054351ar
111 Robert E. Scott & William J. Stuntz, "Plea Bargaining as Contract" (1992) 101:8 Yale L.J. 1909 at 1912.
https://doi.org/10.2307/796952
112 R. v. Nixon, [2011] S.C.J. No. 34, [2011] 2 S.C.R. 566 at para. 47 (S.C.C.).
113 Statistics Canada, "Youth courts, number of cases and charges by type of decision" Table 35-10-0038-01 (Ottawa: Statistics Canada, 2021).
114 Statistics Canada, "Youth courts, number of cases and charges by type of decision" Table 35-10-0038-01 (Ottawa: Statistics Canada, 2021).
115 Statistics Canada, "Youth courts, number of cases and charges by type of decision" Table 35-10-0038-01 (Ottawa: Statistics Canada, 2021) (in 2019-2020, charges were withdrawn or stayed in 10,809 out of 22,017 total youth cases; in 2018-2019, charges were withdrawn or stayed in 11,887 out of 24,656 total youth cases; in 2017-2018, charges were withdrawn or stayed in 13,103 out of 27,919 total youth cases).
116 See Cheryl Marie Webster, Jane B. Sprott & Anthony N. Doob, "The Will to Change: Lessons from Canada's Successful Decarceration of Youth" (2019) 53 Law & Soc. Rev. 1092. https://doi.org/10.1111/lasr.12433
117 Statistics Canada, "Youth courts, number of cases and charges by type of decision" Table 35-10-0038-01 (Ottawa: Statistics Canada, 2021).
118 See Department of Justice Canada, Research and Statistics Division, Angela Bressan & Kyle Coady, Guilty Pleas Among Indigenous People in Canada, Catalogue No. J4-62/2018E PDF (Ottawa: Department of Justice Canada, 2017) at 6. See also Debra Parkes & Emma Cunliffe, "Women and Wrongful Convictions: Concepts and Challenges" (2015) 11:3 Int. J. of Law in Context 219 at fn 47 ("It is surprisingly difficult to find Canadian statistics that differentiate between findings of guilt and guilty pleas.").
119 See "Delaying Justice is Denying Justice: An Urgent Need to Address Lengthy Court Delays in Canada," Final Report of the Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs (2017) at 44 (estimating that 90% of guilty verdicts in the adult system are the product of guilty pleas).
120 See Amanda Carling, "A Way to Reduce Indigenous Overrepresentation: Prevent False Guilty Plea Wrongful Convictions" (2017) 64:3-4 Crim. L.Q. 415; Jeremy Greenberg, "When One Innocent Suffers: Phillip James Tallio and Wrongful Convictions of Indigenous Youth" (2020) 67 Crim. L.Q. 477.
121 See Statistics Canada, "Adult and youth correctional statistics, 2020/2021" (2022), online: https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/en/daily-quotidien/220420/dq220420c-eng.pdf?st=9hzQcB2t.
