Department of Justice Canada
Symbol of the Government of Canada
Skip to content | Skip to institutional links

Common menu bar links

Home > Programs and Initiatives > Youth Justice

Institutional links

Youth Criminal Justice Act 2005 Annual Statement

Executive Summary

The Youth Criminal Justice Act (YCJA) came into force on April 1, 2003. It introduced major changes to youth justice law in Canada in several areas, including the philosophical underpinnings of the youth justice system; the use of the court versus less formal responses to youth crime; conferencing; restrictions on pre-trial detention; sentencing principles; sentencing options; elimination of transfer of cases to the adult court; and custody and the reintegration of youth into society. Legislative changes in these areas were intended to address problems in the youth justice system under the previous legislation, the Young Offenders Act (YOA).

There are limits to what can be accomplished through legislation alone. That is why the YCJA should be seen as part of the federal government's much broader approach to responding to youth crime and the reform of Canada's youth justice system. Major non-legislative factors in this broader approach have included: increased federal funding to the provinces and territories; crime prevention efforts; innovative and effective programs; training of professionals; research; partnerships with other sectors (e.g., education, child welfare and mental health); and improvements to aboriginal communities. Another non-legislative factor that can significantly affect the reform of the youth justice system is the implementation of the YCJA by provinces and territories, including decisions on which programs to fund and the development of policies and guidelines that are consistent with the YCJA.

Purpose and Sources of Information

This Executive Summary sets out the highlights and main findings of the 2005 Annual Statement on the YCJA in advance of the release of the Annual Statement itself, which will take place shortly. The purpose of the Annual Statement is to report on: how the youth justice system is operating under the YCJA; whether policy objectives of the YCJA are being achieved; and issues that need to be addressed. Ideally, reliable and comprehensive statistics would provide the foundation for the discussion in the Annual Statement. However, it will be some time before relatively comprehensive statistical information on the operation of the YCJA will be available from the Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics (CCJS). The Annual Statement relies primarily on the following sources:

  1. Carrington and Schulenberg, The Impact of the YCJA on Police Charging Practices with Young Persons: A Preliminary Statistical Assessment, 2005 (publication forthcoming).
    • The objective of this research was to provide a preliminary assessment, based on national statistical data, of the extent to which police practices in Canada relating to the use of charges or other measures are changing in response to the new legislative direction provided by the YCJA. Data for 1986 to 2003 from the Uniform Crime Reporting Survey (UCR) were analyzed in order to identify changes which occurred in statistical indicators of police charging practices with young persons.
  2. Moyer, A Comparison of Case Processing under the YOA and the First Six Months of the YCJA, 2005 (publication forthcoming).
    • This report was prepared to address certain issues related to youth court processing before and after the YCJA. Two surveys in five major centres collected quantitative data from justice system files for cases dealt with under the YOA and under the YCJA. The random sample of YOA files involved cases processed in fiscal year 1999-2000. The YCJA cases were dealt with during the first six months of the new law. The courts studied were Halifax, Toronto and Scarborough, Winnipeg, Edmonton, and Vancouver and Surrey. The following cautions should be kept in mind when reading statements based on this report:
    • The cases dealt with in the report may not be representative of all cases dealt with under the new legislation.
    • The changes over time observed in the report should not be viewed as necessarily caused by the new legislation. Other factors, including non-legislative factors mentioned above, may have had an impact between 1999 and the first six months of the YCJA.
    • The report provides information in terms of proportions (percentages) of cases being dealt with by the youth courts, not the volume of cases.
    • Some of the differences noted in the report do not reach the level of statistical significance but they do suggest possible changes under the YCJA that need further research.
  3. Department of Justice Canada, National Forum on Implementation of the YCJA, 2005.
    • The objective of this forum was to obtain the best information that was available on the operation of the youth justice system in the first two years of the YCJA. In the absence of comprehensive statistics, the Department of Justice Canada invited key informants to discuss their observations and experience with the implementation of the Act as well as any statistics available to them at the provincial or local level. These key informants represented a cross-section of some of the most knowledgeable people in the country on how the YCJA is being interpreted and applied.
    • There are limitations to the sources used for the Annual Statement and as a result the findings about how the youth justice system is operating under the YCJA should be treated cautiously. Although the findings included in the Annual Statement are preliminary, they are based on the most reliable information that could be collected about early implementation of the YCJA. This includes statistical data on activities at national and regional levels as well as the considered opinion, experience and observations of officials and professionals expert in youth justice and active in the field across the country. Though these findings may not necessarily be representative of the operation of the entire youth justice system, they do provide an early, tentative look at what is happening under the YCJA and an informed basis for further research and analysis.
    • The Annual Statement is organized according to the stages of the youth justice process. The findings for each stage are as follows:

I. Front-End: Charges, Use of Court and Extrajudicial Measures

A. Use of Charges

  1. The charge rate for youth for 2003 decreased by 16% from the figure for 2002, which is the most significant annual decrease since 1977.
  2. There has been a significant reduction in the number of charges laid for less serious offences, but the rate of this reduction decreases as offences get more serious.
  3. The rate at which police laid charges for offences against the administration of justice declined slightly in 2003 from recent peaks but the 2003 figure is still significantly higher than rates for years before 1999.

B. Extrajudicial Measures

  1. There has been an increase in the use of extrajudicial measures by police, and, preliminary indications are that they appear to be using the full range of measures set out in section 6.
  2. In jurisdictions that have crown caution programs or pre-charge screening, crown prosecutors appear to be using cautions and encouraging the use of extrajudicial measures by police.
  3. Net widening: while national figures reported by CCJS for 2003 do not indicate any significant increase in the number of youth being brought into the youth justice system, there have been instances where net widening appears to have occurred in the use of extrajudicial measures programs.
  4. There is not sufficient data yet available to determine the extent to which the use of extrajudicial measures, particularly extrajudicial sanctions, is proportionate to the seriousness of the offence.
  5. There is evidence that conditions are being attached to the use of some police referrals that are not consistent with the objectives of reform at the front end of the process.

II. Pre-Trial Detention

A. Police Detention

  1. It is unclear whether detention of youth by police has increased or decreased under the YCJA.
  2. Young persons who had previously breached a probation order or had three or more previous findings of guilt were significantly more likely to be detained by the police under the YCJA.
  3. There was no significant change in police detention of young persons charged with indictable offences against the person.
  4. 4There was no significant change under the YCJA in the types of release used by police.
  5. Compared to the baseline year of 1999-00, under the YCJA police were more likely to impose conditions on young persons who they released and the average number of conditions of release was significantly higher.

B. Detention at Bail Hearings

  1. The number of admissions of young persons to detention decreased under the YCJA, although the proportion of young persons detained at bail hearings did not change significantly in the first six months of the YCJA.
  2. A smaller proportion of young persons charged with less serious offences against the person were detained under the YCJA, than under the YOA, although the difference was not statistically significant.
  3. A smaller proportion of young persons with a past breach of probation were detained under the YCJA than under the YOA, although the difference was not statistically significant.
  4. Under both the YOA and YCJA, young persons with three or more previous offences were much more likely to be detained than those with fewer or no previous offences.
  5. The average number of days detained did not change significantly under the YCJA.

C. Application of subsections 29(1) and (2)

  1. Despite the prohibition on using detention for social welfare purposes (subsection 29(1)), pre-trial detention is still being used in several jurisdictions to address social welfare needs of young persons. In other jurisdictions, there has been compliance with the prohibition.
  2. The presumption against detention (subsection 29(2)) has had a significant impact, resulting in the release of many young persons who, under the YOA, would have been detained.
  3. Courts are interpreting the presumption against detention (subsection 29(2)) as over-riding the reverse onus provisions of the Criminal Code.

D. Bail Conditions

  1. The average number of court-imposed release conditions under the YCJA remained the same as under the YOA.
  2. There were no significant changes in the use of specific conditions of release.

III. Sentencing

A. Sentencing Options

  1. Almost one-fifth of sentences under the YCJA included one or more of the following new sentencing options: reprimand, attendance centre order, intensive support and supervision order, and deferred custody and supervision order.

B. Custodial Sentences

  1. The use of custodial sentences has decreased significantly under the YCJA.
  2. The use of custodial sentences has decreased for all major offence categories. In most offence categories, the decrease was statistically significant.
  3. Cases resulting in custodial sentences under the YCJA involved significantly more charges than custodial sentence cases under the YOA.
  4. Under the YCJA young persons with a record of previous offences were significantly less likely to receive custody than under the YOA

C. Probation

  1. 1. The use of probation decreased significantly under the YCJA.
  2. The length of probation orders remained the same but the number of conditions and the use of onerous conditions increased significantly under the YCJA.
  3. Sentences that include both custody and probation decreased significantly under the YCJA, but the percentage of young persons subject to a probation order after the completion of their custodial sentence remained about the same.

D. Application of Sentencing Provisions of the YCJA

  1. It appears that the sentencing provisions of the YCJA have had a significant impact on sentencing decisions, particularly in relation to custody.
  2. A current conviction for a serious (indictable) offence and having a pattern of offending strongly predicted being sentenced to custody under the YCJA. This combination was a weak predictor of custody under the YOA.
  3. A current conviction for a bail violation did not predict being sentenced to custody under the YCJA. Under the YOA, this negative relationship between a bail conviction and custody did not exist.
  4. A current breach of probation conviction increased the likelihood of custody under the YOA but not under the YCJA.
  5. A current violent offence conviction predicted being sentenced to custody under both the YOA and the YCJA.
  6. Having social or psychological problems increased the likelihood of being sentenced to custody under the YOA but not under the YCJA.

E. Other Issues

  1. Court decisions have differed on whether deterrence is a sentencing principle under the YCJA, but it appears that most courts have concluded that deterrence is not relevant to sentencing under the YCJA. The Supreme Court of Canada is scheduled to consider the issue in November, 2005.
  2. Risk assessments appear to be used at sentencing in some parts of the country. However, research raises serious doubt about their reliability and validity, and some court decisions have concluded that they are irrelevant to sentencing under the YCJA and potentially prejudicial to young persons being sentenced.
  3. Judges do not appear to be making extensive use of conferences at sentencing.

Ottawa
June 22, 2005

Date Modified: 2011-12-01

Top of Page
Important Notices