Now this is some fucked up shit right here...

[crazy canuck]

Almost certainly judgment proof.

Really?  Just how much do the parents make, and what is the upper limit of worth that qualifies as judgement-proof in Canada/his jurisdiction?

Can't enforce a judgment against the child on the parents.  Big stores tried in shoplifting cases - was resoundingly shot down in the courts.

Given my own experience in youth court and the YCJA, I'm astounded this kid got 16 months custody.  I would have expected a non-custodial disposition.

Case would have to brought directly against the parents

[Barrister]

Here's the actual case decision, though in some ways the NYT article gives more detail.

http://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcpc/doc/2015/2015bcpc203/2015bcpc203.html

Fun fact - the 16 months custody is actually the youth maximum, since the max is two years and only two thirds can be spent in detention (the remaining third must be in the community).

Also the judge references s. 39 of the YCJA, but he doesn't meaningfully address s. 39(1) which states a judge SHALL NOT sentence to custody unless he has committed a violent offence, or has failed to comply with non-custodial sentences (impossible, since he's never been before the courts), or in other exceptional cases.  He was charged with extortion, so perhaps that's how they get the "violent offence" designation, but it might be a stretch.

[Zanza]

Yeah I agree with Valmy. The most likely long term outcome, to me, will be the end of any anonymity on the Internet.

I doubt that. You just need one server inbetween the target and the perp that you can't access to lose a trail.

[Grinning_Colossus]

For the Canuck lawyers (or CC, if no lawyers care to respond):  can the US victims of this guy sue under Canadian law?  Could they sufficiently prove their case if the evidence in the story is accurate?

I would imagine they could. The Canadian courts would have jurisdiction over this guy and his harassment has a jurisdictional nexus with Canada, as well as where his victims lived. He's carried on malicious acts that deliberately caused trauma and so damages to his victims as well as costs to the first responders (assuming, as stated, the accuracy of the story), so it shouldn't be too hard to find a tort theory that would fit.

Another possibility is suing the fellow in the home state of the victims, then seeking recognition and enforcement of those judgment(s) in Canada. That has become much easier in recent years under Canadian laws. That has the benefit, as far as the victims are concerned, of putting the onus and expense on this guy to try and defend the action(s) in another country (nowadays you can't sit back and ignore a foreign proceeding against you - Canadian courts will enforce them here if you do, and you will be fucked). 

Whether this guy has assets that would make suing him anywhere worthwhile is of course another story.

The state courts should have personal jurisdiction over him, since he deliberately "reached into" the states. Minimum contacts. International Shoe. Venue should be proper as well, because lex loci delicti.

Unlike CC, I'm off to go suffer.

[grumbler]

Can't enforce a judgment against the child on the parents.  Big stores tried in shoplifting cases - was resoundingly shot down in the courts.

Given my own experience in youth court and the YCJA, I'm astounded this kid got 16 months custody.  I would have expected a non-custodial disposition.

Thanks.  That's the sort of insight I was looking for.

It makes for an interesting legal dilemma, though.  Should children get away with shit like this just because of the principal that the parent isn't responsible (in cases like this) for the child?  Should parents be held responsible for the acts of non-adults in their control?

It seems unfair to the victims that, if their assailant isn't an adult and hasn't committed a felony, that they have no recourse under the law.

[jimmy olsen]

Calling a SWAT team on innocent people should certainly be a felony. Just one wrong move in the confusion and the victim could killed.

[grumbler]

Here's the actual case decision, though in some ways the NYT article gives more detail.

http://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcpc/doc/2015/2015bcpc203/2015bcpc203.html

Fun fact - the 16 months custody is actually the youth maximum, since the max is two years and only two thirds can be spent in detention (the remaining third must be in the community).

Also the judge references s. 39 of the YCJA, but he doesn't meaningfully address s. 39(1) which states a judge SHALL NOT sentence to custody unless he has committed a violent offence, or has failed to comply with non-custodial sentences (impossible, since he's never been before the courts), or in other exceptional cases.  He was charged with extortion, so perhaps that's how they get the "violent offence" designation, but it might be a stretch.

Thanks.  That's a lot more informative, and makes it clearer that this was no mere "slap on the wrist."  Also, that the kid had appeared before courts before for this kind of behavior.

You da man.

[grumbler]

Calling a SWAT team on innocent people should certainly be a felony. Just one wrong move in the confusion and the victim could killed.

Agree.  Now get the congress and Canadian parliament to agree.

[Barrister]

Here's the actual case decision, though in some ways the NYT article gives more detail.

http://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcpc/doc/2015/2015bcpc203/2015bcpc203.html

Fun fact - the 16 months custody is actually the youth maximum, since the max is two years and only two thirds can be spent in detention (the remaining third must be in the community).

Also the judge references s. 39 of the YCJA, but he doesn't meaningfully address s. 39(1) which states a judge SHALL NOT sentence to custody unless he has committed a violent offence, or has failed to comply with non-custodial sentences (impossible, since he's never been before the courts), or in other exceptional cases.  He was charged with extortion, so perhaps that's how they get the "violent offence" designation, but it might be a stretch.

Thanks.  That's a lot more informative, and makes it clearer that this was no mere "slap on the wrist."  Also, that the kid had appeared before courts before for this kind of behavior.

You da man.

Thank you for your kind words.  It isn't often that the Canadian criminal justice system gets discussed on languish, so when it does I like to show off.

This kid though had never been before the court.  See para 64.

This is the toughest sentence the court could impose.  Doesn't mean I don't think it was a whole lot more than a "slap on the wrist" though.  But there's a reason they don't send me to youth court...

[Ed Anger]

He should be raped in kiddie jail.

There. Internet discussion complete. Your welcome.

[grumbler]

Here's the actual case decision, though in some ways the NYT article gives more detail.

http://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcpc/doc/2015/2015bcpc203/2015bcpc203.html

Fun fact - the 16 months custody is actually the youth maximum, since the max is two years and only two thirds can be spent in detention (the remaining third must be in the community).

Also the judge references s. 39 of the YCJA, but he doesn't meaningfully address s. 39(1) which states a judge SHALL NOT sentence to custody unless he has committed a violent offence, or has failed to comply with non-custodial sentences (impossible, since he's never been before the courts), or in other exceptional cases.  He was charged with extortion, so perhaps that's how they get the "violent offence" designation, but it might be a stretch.

Thanks.  That's a lot more informative, and makes it clearer that this was no mere "slap on the wrist."  Also, that the kid had appeared before courts before for this kind of behavior.

You da man.

Thank you for your kind words.  It isn't often that the Canadian criminal justice system gets discussed on languish, so when it does I like to show off.

This kid though had never been before the court.  See para 64.

This is the toughest sentence the court could impose.  Doesn't mean I don't think it was a whole lot more than a "slap on the wrist" though.  But there's a reason they don't send me to youth court...

Para 40 made me think the court had seen him before and that a reassessment was done, but I'll confess that I don't quite grasp the chronology, so yield to your expertise.  In any case, you provided the missing link as far as I am concerned.

[Razgovory]

Does Canadian law have provisions in where the kid can't use a modem or x number of years?

[DontSayBanana]

Does Canadian law have provisions in where the kid can't use a modem or x number of years?

Does Canada have the same kind of "clean slate" treatment of juvenile vs. adult criminal records as the US does?  That would be one issue- upon reaching adulthood, how do you enforce the juvenile judgment?  Also, the article mentioned he was already in the system and not supposed to be using the Internet without supervision (the more we put school- and work-necessary content online- and I'll bet Canada already puts more online than the US, the less likely we are to be able to put a blanket ban on its use).

[HisMajestyBOB]

Here's the actual case decision, though in some ways the NYT article gives more detail.

http://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcpc/doc/2015/2015bcpc203/2015bcpc203.html

Fun fact - the 16 months custody is actually the youth maximum, since the max is two years and only two thirds can be spent in detention (the remaining third must be in the community).

Also the judge references s. 39 of the YCJA, but he doesn't meaningfully address s. 39(1) which states a judge SHALL NOT sentence to custody unless he has committed a violent offence, or has failed to comply with non-custodial sentences (impossible, since he's never been before the courts), or in other exceptional cases.  He was charged with extortion, so perhaps that's how they get the "violent offence" designation, but it might be a stretch.

Thanks.  That's a lot more informative, and makes it clearer that this was no mere "slap on the wrist."  Also, that the kid had appeared before courts before for this kind of behavior.

You da man.

Thank you for your kind words.  It isn't often that the Canadian criminal justice system gets discussed on languish, so when it does I like to show off.

This kid though had never been before the court.  See para 64.

This is the toughest sentence the court could impose.  Doesn't mean I don't think it was a whole lot more than a "slap on the wrist" though.  But there's a reason they don't send me to youth court...

How long could the sentence be if he was tried if he was an adult? Or if he re-offends after he is 18?

[Malthus]

Naw, prior to 2003 I was enforcing judgments from American Courts in Canada with no problem at all.  In BC it was done pursuant to legislation which recognized the reciprocal enforcement treaty.  The only way to avoid the enforcement was if the judgment of the US court applied a legal principle foreign to Canadian law - the test was more nuanced but that was, and is, the gist of it.  The real and substantial connection test for registering a foreign judgment absent a treaty has always been the test iirc.  Not sure why it was an issue in that case.

Clearly, that was something specific to that province. Each province did it differently.

The real and substantial connection test applied as between provinces. It was only assumed to apply internationally, until the Supremes said it did in this case. From the judgment:

19                              The question arises whether the "real and substantial connection" test, which is applied to interprovincial judgments, should apply equally to the recognition of foreign judgments.  For the reasons that follow, I conclude that it should.  While there are compelling reasons to expand the test's application, there does not appear to be any principled reason not to do so.

By the time of this case, the logic for using the test internationally was so strong, the parties conceded on this point. The Supremes confirmed it.

What that case did, was eliminate the need for local solutions (or presumptions) by dragging the whole country into the modern era - in 2003. That archaic stuff about "attornment" being the assumed state was discarded.