The Youth Criminal Justice Act is the law that governs Canada’s youth justice system. It applies to youth who are at least 12 but under 18 years old, who are alleged to have committed criminal offences. In over a century of youth justice legislation in Canada, there have been three youth justice statutes: the Juvenile Delinquents Act (1908-1984), the Young Offenders Act (YOA) (1984-2003), and the Youth Criminal Justice Act (YCJA) (2003-present). A set of amendments to the YCJA was adopted by Parliament in 2012. The purpose of this document is to explain the background of the YCJA , to provide a summary of its main provisions and the rationale behind them, and to highlight the experience under the YCJA .
On April 1, 2003, the YCJA came into force, completely replacing the previous legislation, the YOA . The YCJA introduced significant reforms to address concerns about how the youth justice system had evolved under the YOA . These concerns included the overuse of the courts and incarceration in less serious cases, disparity and unfairness in sentencing, a lack of effective reintegration of young people released from custody, and the need to better take into account the interests of victims. The YCJA provided the legislative framework for a fairer and more effective youth justice system. The amendments adopted by Parliament in 2012 aimed to strengthen the ways in which the youth justice system deals with repeat and violent offenders.
The YCJA contains both a Preamble and a Declaration of Principle that applies throughout the Act. The Preamble contains significant statements from Parliament about the values upon which the legislation is based. These statements can be used to help interpret the legislation and include the following:
The Declaration of Principle sets out the policy framework of the legislation. Unlike previous youth justice legislation, the YCJA provides guidance on the priority that is to be given to key principles.
The Declaration of Principle provides that:
In addition to the Preamble and the Declaration of Principle, the YCJA includes other more specific principles to guide decision-making at key points in the youth justice process: Extrajudicial Measures, Youth Sentencing, and Custody and Supervision. These additional principles are discussed below.
Experience in Canada and other countries shows that measures outside the court process can provide effective responses to less serious youth crime. One of the key objectives of the YCJA is to increase the use of effective and timely non-court responses to less serious offences by youth. These extrajudicial measures provide meaningful consequences, such as requiring the young person to repair the harm done to the victim. They also allow early intervention with young people and provide the opportunity for the broader community to play an important role in developing community-based responses to youth crime. Increasing the use of non-court responses also enables the courts to focus on the more serious cases of youth crime.
Prior to the YCJA , youth courts were dealing with a large number of relatively minor offences that did not require a court proceeding in order to adequately hold the young person accountable. In addition, the extent to which cases were diverted from the court process varied considerably between provinces.
The YCJA contains provisions to increase the appropriate use of extrajudicial measures for less serious offences, including the following principles:
The YCJA also sets out clear objectives to guide the use of extrajudicial measures, including repairing the harm caused to the victim and the community; providing an opportunity for victims to participate in decisions; ensuring that the measures are proportionate to the seriousness of the offence; and encouraging the involvement of families, victims and other members of the community.
The YCJA requires police officers to consider the use of extrajudicial measures before deciding to charge a young person. Police and prosecutors are specifically authorized to use various types of extrajudicial measures:
In keeping with the Act’s objectives, charging has decreased significantly under the YCJA and police diversion of cases through extrajudicial measures has increased significantly. Under the YOA in 1999, 63 percent of youths accused of a crime were charged and 37 percent were not charged. Under the YCJA in 2010, 42 percent of youths accused of a crime were charged and 58 percent were not charged (see Figure 1). The number of accused young persons who were charged includes those who were recommended for charging by police in provinces in which the prosecutor makes the decision on charging. Young persons who were not charged include youths diverted from the court process through the use of warnings, referrals to community programs, cautions and pre-charge extrajudicial sanctions. This change in police behaviour occurred without evidence of net-widening; in other words, the evidence does not suggest an increase in the number of young persons drawn into the system and subjected to informal measures, but rather an increase in the use of informal measures as an alternative to laying charges.
There has also been a significant reduction in the use of the court under the YCJA . Youth court cases declined by 26 percent between 2002-03 and 2009-10 (see Figure 2). After a large initial drop, the number of youth court cases has remained relatively stable. There have been declines in court cases in all provinces and territories, with declines of more than 20 percent in seven jurisdictions. Court cases have declined significantly in all major offence categories.
Despite the significant reduction in the number of court cases, most cases still involve offences that are relatively "less serious." The most serious offence in one of every six court cases is an administration of justice offence (17 percent of cases), which typically involves behaviour that would not be an offence outside of a court order, such as breaching a probation condition ( e.g. , a curfew).
Figure 1: Accused Youths: Charged v. Not Charged - 1999 and 2010
Figure 1 - Text equivalent
Source: Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics, Incident-based crime statistics
Figure 2: Youth Court Cases, Canada, 2002/03 - 2009/10
Figure 2 - Text equivalent
Source: Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics, Youth Court Survey
Prior to the YCJA , the use of conferences was increasing in many parts of Canada in order to assist in the making of decisions regarding young persons who were involved in the youth justice system. In general, a conference refers to various types of processes in which affected or interested parties come together to formulate plans to address the circumstances involved in individual youth cases. Conferences operated without legislative authority and in an informal manner.
Conferences can take the form of family group conferencing, youth justice committees, community accountability panels, sentencing circles and inter-agency case conferences. Conferences provide an opportunity for a wide range of perspectives on a case, more creative solutions, better coordination of services and increased involvement of the victim and other community members in the youth justice system.
The YCJA authorizes and encourages the convening of conferences to assist decision makers in the youth justice system. Under the legislation, a conference is defined as a group of people brought together to give advice to a police officer, judge, justice of the peace, prosecutor, provincial director or youth worker who is required to make a decision under the YCJA . A conference can give advice on decisions such as:
A conference can be composed of a variety of people depending on the situation. It can include the parents of the young person, the victim, others who are familiar with the young person and his or her neighbourhood, and community agencies or professionals with a particular expertise that is needed for a decision. A conference can be a restorative mechanism that is focused on developing proposals for repairing the harm done to the victim of the young person’s offence. It can also be a professional case conference in which professionals discuss how the young person’s needs can best be met and how services in the community can be coordinated to assist the young person.
A conference under the YCJA is not a decision-making body. It provides advice or recommendations to a decision maker, such as a judge or a prosecutor. The recommendations can be accepted by the decision maker only if they are consistent with the YCJA . For example, the decision maker cannot accept the recommendations of a conference if they would result in an extrajudicial measure or sentence that is disproportionate to the seriousness of the young person’s offence.
Prior to the YCJA , there was considerable evidence that pre-trial detention was being over-used. In particular, large numbers of youths who were charged with relatively minor offences were being detained. Youths were often detained on charges for which adults were not detained. Pre-trial detention was often used as a way of responding to a youth’s social-welfare needs rather than for legitimate criminal law reasons.
Most of the provisions related to pre-trial detention under the YOA were not changed with the coming into force of the YCJA , including the application of the Criminal Code. However, in response to concerns that pre-trial detention was being over-used, the YCJA , when passed by Parliament, included the following changes: Pre-trial detention is not to be used as a substitute for child protection, mental health or other social measures.
In 2012, the pre-trial detention provisions in the YCJA were amended by Parliament. The objective of the amendments was to reduce complexity in order to facilitate effective decision-making at the pre-trial stage, which includes managing youth in the community where possible, while at the same time ensuring that youth who should be detained can be detained.
Rather than applying the grounds for detention in the Criminal Code to youth, the amendments created a new stand-alone test for pre-trial detention of youth in the YCJA . Now a court may detain a youth if the following criteria are met:
In 2009-10, the average daily number of youths in remand was 15 percent higher than in 2003-04 (see Figure 3). Six of the 10 provinces had a higher number of youths in remand in 2008-09 than in 2003-04.
Comparisons of remand rates ( i.e. , the number of youths in remand per 10,000 youths in the population) also indicate an increase in the use of pre-trial detention under the YCJA . Based on statistics from the 10 provinces, the overall remand rate increased from 3.3 in 2003-04 to 3.8 in 2009-10 (see Figure 4).
Pre-trial detention under the YCJA is primarily used to detain youths charged with non-violent offences. The most serious offence charged in about 75 percent of admissions to detention is a non-violent offence. The most common offence leading to detention is an administration of justice offence, such as a breach of a bail condition.
Figure 3: Average Daily Number of Youths in Remand, Canada: 2003/04-2009/10
Figure 3 - Text equivalent
Source: Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics, Youth Custody and Community Services Survey
Figure 4: Youth Remand Rate, All Provinces: 2003/04 to 2009/10
Figure 4 - Text equivalent
Rate: Number of youths in remand per 10,000 youths in the population
Source: Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics, Youth Custody and Community Services Survey
Prior to the YCJA , Canada had one of the highest youth incarceration rates in the Western world. Youth sentences were not required to be proportionate to the seriousness of the offence committed, and custody was often imposed as a sentence in less serious cases. Youth courts sometimes imposed very intrusive sentences on young persons who committed relatively minor offences in an effort to address psychological or social needs. In addition, custody orders did not include a period of community supervision after the young person’s release from custody, thus failing to ensure appropriate supervision and support for the young person during the transition from custody back into his or her community.
The YCJA includes a specific purpose and set of principles to guide judges in deciding on a fair and appropriate youth sentence. Under the YCJA , the purpose of youth sentences is to hold young persons accountable through just sanctions that ensure meaningful consequences for them and promote their rehabilitation and reintegration into society, thereby contributing to the long-term protection of the public.
Specific sentencing principles emphasize that a youth sentence must:
Proportionality is a basic principle of fairness that means less serious offences should result in less severe consequences and more serious offences should result in more severe consequences. The YCJA is clear that rehabilitative measures intended to address problems that appear to have caused the young person to commit an offence must not result in a sentence that is not in proportion to the seriousness of the offence committed. For example, a young person who has committed a relatively minor offence but has serious psychological needs that seem to have contributed to the behaviour should receive a sentence that reflects the seriousness of the offence and not the seriousness of the psychological needs.
As passed by Parliament in 2002, neither specific deterrence ( i.e. , deter the specific youth from committing offences) nor general deterrence ( i.e. , deter others from committing offences) were objectives of sentencing under the YCJA , despite the fact that they are adult sentencing objectives in the Criminal Code. The YCJA also did not provide for the adult sentencing objective of denunciation.
In 2012, Parliament amended the YCJA to permit a youth sentence to include the objectives of denunciation and specific deterrence. However, including these objectives must not result in a sentence that exceeds a proportionate response or is inconsistent with the purpose of sentencing and the mandatory sentencing principles mentioned above, such as choosing a sentence that is most likely to rehabilitate the young person.
Under the YCJA , custody sentences are intended to be reserved primarily for violent offenders and serious repeat offenders. As passed by Parliament in 2002, the Act provided that a young person could not be sentenced to custody unless:
In 2012, Parliament amended the YCJA by expanding the meaning of violent offence and pattern of findings of guilt. "Violent offence" is now defined in the Act as an offence in which the young person causes, attempts or threatens to cause bodily harm or endangers the life or safety of a person by creating a substantial likelihood of bodily harm.
The meaning of a "pattern" was expanded to include extrajudicial sanctions. This means that extrajudicial sanctions will be included with findings of guilt in determining whether the young person has a history that indicates a pattern of offences.
Before the court can impose a custodial sentence, it must consider all reasonable alternatives to custody and determine that there is no reasonable alternative capable of holding the young person accountable in accordance with the purpose and principles of sentencing discussed above. This means, for example, that although a young person has failed to comply with previous non-custodial sentences, he or she may receive another non-custodial sentence if the court determines that it would be adequate to hold the young person accountable.
Although the court must consider alternatives to custody for all offenders, particular attention must be given to the circumstances of young Aboriginal offenders.
In general, the sentencing options that were available to the court under the YOA , such as probation or community service, were retained in the YCJA . However, the YCJA contains significant improvements regarding youth sentencing options.
The YCJA replaced the usual custody order with a custody and supervision order. This sentence is composed of a portion in custody and a portion in the community.
The YCJA also introduced a number of new sentencing options that allow youth court judges to deal with the full range of youth crime:
The federal government provides special funding for the provinces and territories to ensure that this intensive rehabilitative sentencing option is available throughout the country.
The number of custody sentences dropped by 64 percent between 2002-03 and 2009-10 (see Figure 5). All provinces had significant decreases, ranging from 48 percent to 79 percent.
The percentage of guilty cases resulting in custody sentences also dropped from 27 percent in 2002-03 to 15 percent in 2008-09 (see Figure 6). While more than one in four guilty cases resulted in custody in the last year of the YOA , only one in about seven guilty cases did so in 2008-09. The percentage of guilty cases resulting in custody also dropped significantly in all provinces and territories.
More than half of all custody sentences have been imposed in cases involving relatively less serious offences such as theft, possession of stolen property, mischief, common assault in which no bodily harm was caused and administration of justice offences.
Canada’s overall youth incarceration rate, which includes both custody and detention, has declined by almost 50 percent under the YCJA , from 13 youths per 10,000 in 2002-03 to seven youths per 10,000 in 2008-09 (see Figure 7). After a significant decline in 2003-04, the youth incarceration rate has been stable.
Figure 5: Number of Custody Sentences, Canada 2002/03 to 2009/10
Figure 5 - Text equivalent
Source: Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics, Youth Court Survey
Figure 6: Percentage of Guilty Cases Sentenced to Custody, Canada: 2002/03 to 2009/10
Figure 6 - Text equivalent
Source: Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics, Youth Court Survey
Figure 7: Youth Incarceration Rate, Canada: 1996/97 to 2008/09
Youth Incarceration Rate, Canada: 1996/97 to 2008/09 described below" />
Figure 7 - Text equivalent
Rate: Number of youths per 10,000 youths in the population
Source: Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics, Youth Custody and Community Services Survey
For nearly 100 years prior to the YCJA , Canada’s youth justice legislation allowed young persons who were 14 years of age or older to be transferred to adult court under certain circumstances. If the young person was convicted in adult court, the court imposed an adult sentence.
Provisions were added to this under the YOA so that if a 16- or 17-year-old was charged with murder, attempted murder, manslaughter or aggravated sexual assault, it was presumed that he or she would be transferred to the adult court and, if convicted, would receive an adult sentence. The presumption did not mean that there would be an automatic transfer; it meant that the young person had to attempt to persuade the court that he or she should remain in the youth court. The transfer hearing was complex and caused significant delays. Many considered it to be unfair because it took place before a court had determined whether or not the young person was guilty of the offence.
The YCJA eliminated the process of transferring young persons to adult court. Instead, the YCJA established a process whereby the youth court first determines whether or not the young person is guilty of the offence and then, under certain circumstances, the youth court may impose an adult sentence. Offences that can lead to an adult sentence are indictable offences committed when the youth was at least 14 years old, for which an adult would be liable to imprisonment for more than two years. The YCJA , as passed by Parliament in 2002, also included a presumption that youth 14 or older found guilty of certain serious violent offences would receive an adult sentence. In these circumstances, the onus was on the young person to convince the court that a youth sentence would be appropriate.
In 2008 in the case of R. v. D.B., the Supreme Court of Canada struck down the presumptive offence provisions of the YCJA as unconstitutional. The Court found that the presumption of an adult sentence in the provisions of the YCJA was inconsistent with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms’ principle of fundamental justice that, in comparison to adults, young people are entitled to a presumption of diminished moral blameworthiness. The Court stated: "Because of their age, young people have heightened vulnerability, less maturity and a reduced capacity for moral judgment. This entitles them to a presumption of diminished moral blameworthiness or culpability." (R. v. D.B., [2008] S.C.J. No. 25 ( S.C.C. ))
In 2012, Parliament removed the presumptive offence scheme from the YCJA while retaining Crown applications for adult sentences for youth. Parliament also amended the adult sentencing provisions to include the following:
The Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics does not provide statistics on adult sentences under the YCJA .
As mentioned previously, a significant weakness of the YOA was that it failed to address effective reintegration of a young person into the community after being released from custody. Under the YOA , a young person could be released from custody with no required supervision and support to assist the young person in making the transition back to his or her community.
The YCJA includes many provisions to assist the young person’s reintegration into the community. Underpinning the YCJA is the belief that young people can be rehabilitated and successfully reintegrated into the community. The focus of every custody sentence must be on reintegration and on measures aimed at assisting the young person not to re-offend.
Under the YCJA , every period of custody is followed by a period of supervision and support in the community, as part of the young person’s sentence. This includes custody and supervision orders, intensive rehabilitative custody and supervision orders, and youth sentences for murder. Judges must clearly state in open court the portion of the sentence to be served in custody and the portion to be served in the community.
The YCJA contains a list of mandatory conditions that apply to all young persons under supervision in the community. Additional conditions can be imposed to support the young person and address his or her needs, as well as to manage risk.
If a young person breaches a condition while under supervision in the community, a review is held, which may result in a change in conditions or in the young person being returned to custody. If the provincial director with responsibility for youth corrections has ordered the young person to be returned to custody, the court will conduct a review. If the court is satisfied that the young person has breached a condition and the breach was serious, it may order the young person to serve the remainder of the community portion in custody. If the breach was not serious, the court may vary the conditions or impose new or additional conditions.
Before the start of the community supervision portion, the court can require the young person to remain in custody if the court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to believe the young person will commit an offence causing death or serious harm if released into the community before the end of the sentence.
When a young person goes into custody, the YCJA requires that a youth worker work with the young person to plan for his or her reintegration into the community. The reintegration plan identifies programs and activities aimed at maximizing the young person’s chances for successful reintegration into the community.
When the young person is serving the community supervision portion of the sentence, the youth worker supervises the young person and provides support and assistance in order to help the young person respect conditions and implement the reintegration plan.
In addition to community supervision and support after release from custody, a young person’s rehabilitation and reintegration back into the community can be promoted prior to release from custody through reintegration leaves. A young person may be authorized to have a reintegration leave for medical, compassionate or humanitarian reasons. Leaves are for a period of up to 30 days, but the provincial director can renew them.
A general rule under the YCJA is that a young person who is serving a youth custody sentence is to be held separate and apart from adults. When a young person serving a youth sentence reaches the age of 18, a judge may authorize the provincial director to place the young person in an adult correctional facility if the court considers it to be in the best interests of the young person or in the public interest. The YCJA also creates a presumption that if a young person in a youth facility reaches the age of 20, he or she should be transferred from the youth facility to an adult facility to serve the remainder of the sentence. If a young person is placed in an adult facility, special provisions govern how the adult conditional release entitlements apply to the young person. The privacy provisions associated with a youth sentence continue to apply (see section on Publication below).
As noted above, the YCJA also contains provisions relating to placement of a young person who receives an adult sentence. In 2012, Parliament passed an amendment that provides that a young person who is under the age of 18 at the time of sentencing must be placed in a youth custody facility. Thus, no young person under 18 can serve any portion of a sentence in a provincial correctional centre for adults or a penitentiary.
A cornerstone of youth justice in Canada is that, as a general rule, the identity of a young person should be protected. The rationale for this rule is that publication of a young person’s name would impede rehabilitation efforts, detrimentally affect the young person and, in the long run, compromise public safety.
Under the YOA , an important exception to this general rule was that the publication of information that identified the young person was permitted if the young person was transferred to adult court. As a result of this provision, identifying information could be published before a court determined whether or not the young person was guilty of the offence, which was widely considered to be unfair.
Under the YCJA , the general rule against publication of identifying information is maintained. However, publication is allowed in certain limited circumstances. For example, information that identifies the young person can be published if a youth court has imposed an adult sentence. As amended by Parliament in 2012, the YCJA also allows publication of identifying information where a youth sentence is imposed for a violent offence if the following requirements are met:
Prior to the YCJA , the youth justice system had been criticized for not adequately recognizing the interests and needs of victims of offences committed by young persons.
Under the YCJA , the interests and needs of victims are clearly recognized and the role of victims at different stages of the youth justice process is specified. Key provisions include:
The YCJA sets out the legislative framework for Canada’s youth justice system and provides legislative direction to assist in achieving a system that is fair and effective.
