R. v. D.B.

Take the test now.

Link to the original Supreme Court decision (May 16, 2008).

Case summary: The defendant B was involved in a fight during which he knocked someone to the ground and punched him. The victim was taken to hospital and died of his injuries. B was 17 at the time. He pleaded guilty to a charge of manslaughter, which is a "presumptive offence" under the Youth Criminal Justice Act (YCJA), meaning that young offenders will be sentenced as adults for this offence (with a maximum sentence of life imprisonment) by default, unless they can persuade the court that a youth sentence should apply. The publication ban provisions of the YCJA are also weakened for presumptive offences. He sought a youth sentence, the Crown opposed that, and he challenged the presumptive offence regime as unconstitutional under section 7 of the Charter because it reverses the burden of proof from the Crown to the accused. The trial judge allowed the Charter challenge and sentenced B to the maximum youth sentence of three years. The Court of Appeal upheld that decision.

Opinions:

(McLachlin, Binnie, LeBel, Abella, and Fish): The "reverse onus" regime of the YCJA in relation to "presumptive offences" is unconstitutional; the YCJA violates the principles of fundamental justice of section 7 of the Charter, and must be overturned; the youth sentence imposed by the trial judge stands. Majority decision.

(Bastarache, Deschamps, Charron, and Rothstein): Although the general reduced moral culpability of young people is a "principle of fundamental justice," the specific details of what that means, and in particular the idea that young people should always presumptively have more lenient sentences or the benefit of a publication ban, are not fundamental principles. The YCJA is Constitutional. However, the youth sentence imposed by the trial judge in this case is reasonable and can stand.