Reverse Onus

“Using a precedent set by a Crown Attorney in Southern Ontario, a local prosecutor asked the Judge to apply the Reverse Onus – Section ABC part II in a case involving a three-time repeat Young Offender. The Judge, upon reviewing the sealed records of the youth, agreed to apply this new interpretation of the YJCA. The defence attorney, being unaware of the new section of the Act, requested a clarification, thinking that the CA had just asked that the youth be tried as an adult under the old Reverse Onus section. The offense, assault causing bodily harm, the Pro Bono attorney assured the court, did not meet the standards of the Reverse Onus section.

“Her Honour explained to the defence, and to the youth who had been apprehended for the third time in relation to an assault charge, that under the new section, the youth had an option for sentencing: the youth could name any adult to serve the sentence or he/she could add the jail time to their so-called Happy 18th Birthday list. The premise of the new section of the Act is that the parent bears some responsibility for the actions of their children until they attain the age of majority. The Young Offender had one week to submit the name of an adult willing to serve the time (on weekends, if so elected). Failing to find a willing adult, the jail term would be served immediately upon the youth becoming an Adult, i.e. their 18th birthday.

“Observing the delighted look on the face of the Young Offender, the Judge issued a caveat: Any named adult refusing to serve the time for the young offender must attend, with the youth, at a Reverse Onus Healing Circle session. Adapted from the Native peoples Healing Circle, the ROHC is a session where the youth must give their reasons for being charged with an offense, while the adult must give their reasons for not wanting to serve the time for the youth in question. Held weekly at a local church, the ROHC sessions are jointly funded by the local school board and a local service club.

“The Judge further cautioned the youth not to endeavour to use a ‘homeless’ person as their proxy, as has been the case by youths in the GTA. In that jurisdiction, homeless people had been attending jails, especially during the winter, in great number as proxies for youth. Any selected adult must be known to the youth. Any adult elected by the youth must attend the ROHC or show reason that they should not face contempt of court charges. The judge also noted that an accumulation of more than 30 days on the Birthday list would result in a criminal record for the youth. Terms of less than 30 days are expunged from the records.

“Outside the court room, the Crown Attorney explained to the reporters that the new Reverse Onus was having positive effects on young offenders as a result of attending the ROHC sessions. It seemed to come as a surprise to some offenders that while they blamed their parents, school teachers and community leaders for their bad behaviour, the adults in question often had a different view of the circumstances. In other cases, the adults seemed to accept that they had not fully understood their obligations to society, an awareness that may eventually benefit society.

“The Crown Attorney admitted that there was a case before the Ontario courts where a parent and the Ontario Civil Rights union have claimed the parent’s rights, under the Charter of Rights, have been breached. They claim that parents have the inalienable right to raise their children any way they wish, including the freedom to raise anarchists or social psychopaths. The CA expects the Ontario court to throw out the case under the ‘common good’ clause.”

(excerpts from the novel “North Bay: 2010” – a work in progress....)