Section 19 of the Youth Criminal Justice Act: A look at the use of conferences across Canada

The Youth Criminal Justice Act (YCJA) came into force on April 1, 2003 to assist in reducing the notably high Canadian youth custody rate. The YCJA promotes youth rehabilitation and reintegration into society through diversion from the formal justice system and greater community involvement in responding to youth crime. It also promotes responsibility and accountability through measures that are proportionate to the seriousness of the offence and the youth’s stage of development. In support of these goals, section 19 of the YCJA introduced conferences as a means to assist both decision makers and youth involved in the criminal justice system (CJS). Section 19 conferences provide an opportunity for various professionals and stakeholders, including the young person concerned and their family, to come together to discuss the matter in a more informal setting in order to formulate recommendations about the young person’s case.

Despite the introduction of section 19 conferences almost 20 years ago, there has been little information gathered on the extent of their use, how they are being conducted, and the associated outcomes. In 2020, the Department of Justice Canada undertook a national survey to fill this knowledge gap. An invitation to complete the electronic survey was sent to provincial and territorial representatives of the Coordinating Committee of Senior Officials – Youth Justice. All 13 jurisdictions completed the survey.

The focus of this research was to better understand how provinces and territories are using section 19 of the YCJA (and other related sections). This research also aimed to gain insight into ways of addressing the overrepresentation of Indigenous and racialized youth in the CJS.The focus of this research was to better understand how provinces and territories are using section 19 of the YCJA (and other related sections). This research also aimed to gain insight into ways of addressing the overrepresentation of Indigenous and racialized youth in the CJS. Many aspects of section 19 conferences were examined, including:

Extent of use of conferences; Purposes and processes of conferences; Benefits of conferences; Challenges of conferences; and Data collection, evaluations and impact assessments. Results indicated that all jurisdictions convene section 19 conferences, with the exception of Quebec and the Yukon. Most jurisdictions reported having developed either rules, policies, guidelines and/or programs pertaining to the convening of conferences, although these varied widely.

Conferences were reported to be convened at all stages of the CJS, with most jurisdictions convening them at the post-charge/pre-finding of guilt, post-finding of guilt/pre-sentence and post-sentencing stages. Slightly fewer jurisdictions reported convening conferences at the pre-charge stage. Jurisdictions noted that conferences were convened for a variety of purposes, most notably as a means to attain advice on a sentencing plan or to assist in the process of developing a sentencing plan, to coordinate social services, to determine appropriate extrajudicial sanctions, as well as to determine conditions for judicial interim release (i.e., bail).

Jurisdictions described differing processes for convening section 19 conferences. Four jurisdictions reported having dedicated resources for organizing conferences. In terms of who convenes conferences, jurisdictions noted that various professionals may do so, such as provincial directors or delegates, probation officers, youth workers, mental-health workers, police officers, Crown prosecutors, Justices of the Peace, or defence counsels, among others. Further, several jurisdictions reported that conferences were convened by judges, which is consistent with section 41 of the YCJA.

Those who took part in a conference (as participants) also varied by jurisdiction, but generally included the youth, family or other support people, probation officers, social workers, child welfare representatives, mental health workers, school representatives, as well as Elders or an Indigenous representative. Other less frequently noted types of participants included police officers, Crown prosecutors, the defence counsels, educators, interpreters, as well as victims and their family and other support people of the victim.

Alberta was the only jurisdiction to report eligibility criteria to participate in a conference. These criteria pertained to youth and offence characteristics. However, a review of policy/guideline/program documents provided by other jurisdictions identified a number of situations or circumstances that lead to the consideration of a section 19 conference. These included, for example, complex cases where custody is considered or when dealing with chronic re-offending. Conversely, only the Northwest Territories prohibited the use of section 19 conferences in certain circumstances (i.e., when charges related to specific types of offences such as murder).

Notable benefits of section 19 conferences were reported, such as:

Increasing involvement and buy-in of youth in their case; Helping address diverse and complex needs (e.g., youth who are under the jurisdictions of both child welfare services and the CJS, those with cognitive abilities); Increasing collaboration between justice actors and between social systems for better case planning; Providing an opportunity for restorative justice; and, Leading to reduced charges and recidivism. Further, many jurisdictions confirmed that conferences allowed accommodations and adaptions for diversity, which included accommodations specific to Indigenous identity, cultural and/or linguistic background, gender and lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, intersex, and asexual (LGBTQIA+) identities, mental health and/or addiction issues, in addition to accommodations for cognitive disabilities.

A number of challenges and areas for improvement pertaining to section 19 conferences were highlighted by jurisdictions. These included:

Scheduling, time requirements, and logistical issues (e.g., conflicting schedules, lack of dedicated coordinators; technological limitations around access to phones and internet); Difficulties getting people to support and participate in conferences; and, Limited availability of community programs, resources and supports for case planning. Less than half of jurisdictions reported collecting some form of administrative data on various aspects of section 19 conferences (e.g., number, youth characteristics, purposes, participants, outcome and cost). Three jurisdictions (Alberta, Saskatchewan, and New Brunswick) reported having conducted an evaluation or impact assessment. Similar benefits and challenges as those reported in this study were found by these assessments.

Despite the widespread use of section 19 conferences across Canada, the current research has demonstrated that there are limited data collected across Canada on the use of section 19 conferences and their outcomes. However, the many benefits of section 19 conferences highlighted in this study provide support for further consideration of expanding the use of section 19 conferences across Canada. This could better support youth involved in the CJS and possibly help contribute to a reduction in the overrepresentation of Indigenous and racialized youth in custody.

Jeux de données disponibles au téléchargement

Informations supplémentaires

Champ Valeur
Dernière mise à jour octobre 20, 2025, 03:15 (TU)
Créé octobre 20, 2025, 03:15 (TU)
Domaine / Sujet
Domaine ou sujet du jeu de données catalogué.
Titre
Titre du jeu de données.
Section 19 of the Youth Criminal Justice Act: A look at the use of conferences across Canada
Description
Une description du jeu de données.

The Youth Criminal Justice Act (YCJA) came into force on April 1, 2003 to assist in reducing the notably high Canadian youth custody rate. The YCJA promotes youth rehabilitation and reintegration into society through diversion from the formal justice system and greater community involvement in responding to youth crime. It also promotes responsibility and accountability through measures that are proportionate to the seriousness of the offence and the youth’s stage of development. In support of these goals, section 19 of the YCJA introduced conferences as a means to assist both decision makers and youth involved in the criminal justice system (CJS). Section 19 conferences provide an opportunity for various professionals and stakeholders, including the young person concerned and their family, to come together to discuss the matter in a more informal setting in order to formulate recommendations about the young person’s case.

Despite the introduction of section 19 conferences almost 20 years ago, there has been little information gathered on the extent of their use, how they are being conducted, and the associated outcomes. In 2020, the Department of Justice Canada undertook a national survey to fill this knowledge gap. An invitation to complete the electronic survey was sent to provincial and territorial representatives of the Coordinating Committee of Senior Officials – Youth Justice. All 13 jurisdictions completed the survey.

The focus of this research was to better understand how provinces and territories are using section 19 of the YCJA (and other related sections). This research also aimed to gain insight into ways of addressing the overrepresentation of Indigenous and racialized youth in the CJS.The focus of this research was to better understand how provinces and territories are using section 19 of the YCJA (and other related sections). This research also aimed to gain insight into ways of addressing the overrepresentation of Indigenous and racialized youth in the CJS. Many aspects of section 19 conferences were examined, including:

Extent of use of conferences; Purposes and processes of conferences; Benefits of conferences; Challenges of conferences; and Data collection, evaluations and impact assessments. Results indicated that all jurisdictions convene section 19 conferences, with the exception of Quebec and the Yukon. Most jurisdictions reported having developed either rules, policies, guidelines and/or programs pertaining to the convening of conferences, although these varied widely.

Conferences were reported to be convened at all stages of the CJS, with most jurisdictions convening them at the post-charge/pre-finding of guilt, post-finding of guilt/pre-sentence and post-sentencing stages. Slightly fewer jurisdictions reported convening conferences at the pre-charge stage. Jurisdictions noted that conferences were convened for a variety of purposes, most notably as a means to attain advice on a sentencing plan or to assist in the process of developing a sentencing plan, to coordinate social services, to determine appropriate extrajudicial sanctions, as well as to determine conditions for judicial interim release (i.e., bail).

Jurisdictions described differing processes for convening section 19 conferences. Four jurisdictions reported having dedicated resources for organizing conferences. In terms of who convenes conferences, jurisdictions noted that various professionals may do so, such as provincial directors or delegates, probation officers, youth workers, mental-health workers, police officers, Crown prosecutors, Justices of the Peace, or defence counsels, among others. Further, several jurisdictions reported that conferences were convened by judges, which is consistent with section 41 of the YCJA.

Those who took part in a conference (as participants) also varied by jurisdiction, but generally included the youth, family or other support people, probation officers, social workers, child welfare representatives, mental health workers, school representatives, as well as Elders or an Indigenous representative. Other less frequently noted types of participants included police officers, Crown prosecutors, the defence counsels, educators, interpreters, as well as victims and their family and other support people of the victim.

Alberta was the only jurisdiction to report eligibility criteria to participate in a conference. These criteria pertained to youth and offence characteristics. However, a review of policy/guideline/program documents provided by other jurisdictions identified a number of situations or circumstances that lead to the consideration of a section 19 conference. These included, for example, complex cases where custody is considered or when dealing with chronic re-offending. Conversely, only the Northwest Territories prohibited the use of section 19 conferences in certain circumstances (i.e., when charges related to specific types of offences such as murder).

Notable benefits of section 19 conferences were reported, such as:

Increasing involvement and buy-in of youth in their case; Helping address diverse and complex needs (e.g., youth who are under the jurisdictions of both child welfare services and the CJS, those with cognitive abilities); Increasing collaboration between justice actors and between social systems for better case planning; Providing an opportunity for restorative justice; and, Leading to reduced charges and recidivism. Further, many jurisdictions confirmed that conferences allowed accommodations and adaptions for diversity, which included accommodations specific to Indigenous identity, cultural and/or linguistic background, gender and lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, intersex, and asexual (LGBTQIA+) identities, mental health and/or addiction issues, in addition to accommodations for cognitive disabilities.

A number of challenges and areas for improvement pertaining to section 19 conferences were highlighted by jurisdictions. These included:

Scheduling, time requirements, and logistical issues (e.g., conflicting schedules, lack of dedicated coordinators; technological limitations around access to phones and internet); Difficulties getting people to support and participate in conferences; and, Limited availability of community programs, resources and supports for case planning. Less than half of jurisdictions reported collecting some form of administrative data on various aspects of section 19 conferences (e.g., number, youth characteristics, purposes, participants, outcome and cost). Three jurisdictions (Alberta, Saskatchewan, and New Brunswick) reported having conducted an evaluation or impact assessment. Similar benefits and challenges as those reported in this study were found by these assessments.

Despite the widespread use of section 19 conferences across Canada, the current research has demonstrated that there are limited data collected across Canada on the use of section 19 conferences and their outcomes. However, the many benefits of section 19 conferences highlighted in this study provide support for further consideration of expanding the use of section 19 conferences across Canada. This could better support youth involved in the CJS and possibly help contribute to a reduction in the overrepresentation of Indigenous and racialized youth in custody.
Étiquettes / Mots-clés
Mots-clés/étiquettes catégorisant le jeu de données.
Format (CSV, XLS, TXT, PDF, etc.)
Format de fichier du jeu de données.
Taille du jeu de données
Taille du jeu de données en mégaoctets.
Identifiant des métadonnées
Identifiant des métadonnées — peut être utilisé comme identifiant unique pour l’entrée du catalogue.
Date de publication
Date de publication du jeu de données.
2022-01-01
Période temporelle des données (date de début)
Date de début des données dans le jeu de données.
Période temporelle des données (date de fin)
Date de fin des données temporelles du jeu de données.
Zone géospatiale couverte
Région spatiale ou lieu nommé couvert par le jeu de données.
Champ Valeur
Catégorie d’accès
Type d’accès accordé pour le jeu de données (ouvert, restreint, service, etc.).
Licence
Licence utilisée pour accéder au jeu de données.
Open Government Licence - Canada
Restrictions d’utilisation
Restrictions d’utilisation des données.
Emplacement
Emplacement du jeu de données.
https://open.canada.ca/data/en/dataset/c07dab27-6f6e-4217-8195-2d4e7aa92f12
Service de données
Service de données pour accéder à un jeu de données.
Propriétaire
Propriétaire du jeu de données.
Department of Justice Canada | Ministère de la Justice Canada
Point de contact
Qui contacter concernant l’accès ?
Courriel du point de contact
Courriel à utiliser pour l’accès ?
Éditeur
Éditeur du jeu de données.
Courriel de l’éditeur
Adresse courriel de l’éditeur.
[email protected]
Auteur
Auteur du jeu de données.
Courriel de l'auteur
Adresse courriel de l’auteur.
Date d’accès
Date à laquelle les données et métadonnées ont été consultées.
Champ Valeur
Identifiant
Identifiant unique du jeu de données.
Langue
Langue(s) du jeu de données
Lien vers la description du jeu de données
Une URL vers un document externe décrivant le jeu de données.
Identifiant persistant
Les données sont identifiées par un identifiant persistant.
Identifiant globalement unique
Les données sont identifiées par un identifiant persistant et globalement unique.
Contient des données sur des individus
Le jeu de données contient-il des données sur des individus ?
Contient des données identifiables sur des individus
Le jeu de données contient-il des données identifiables sur des individus ?
Contient des données autochtones
Le jeu de données contient-il des données sur des communautés autochtones ?
Type de portail
Type de plateforme du portail source.
Champ Valeur
Version
Version du jeu de données
None
Source
Source du jeu de données.
None
Notes de version
Notes de version à propos du jeu de données.
Est une version d’un autre jeu de données
Lien vers le jeu de données dont celui-ci est une version.
Autres versions
Lien vers les jeux de données qui en sont des versions.
Texte de provenance
Texte de provenance des données.
URL de provenance
URL de provenance des données.
Résolution temporelle
Décrit la granularité des données temporelles dans le jeu de données.
Résolution géospatiale en mètres
Décrit la granularité (en mètres) des données géospatiales dans le jeu de données.
Résolution géospatiale (par régions)
Décrit la granularité (par régions) des données géospatiales dans le jeu de données.
Champ Valeur
Permission de la communauté autochtone
Qui détient la permission de la communauté autochtone. Qui contacter pour l’accès à un jeu de données concernant des communautés autochtones.
Permission communautaire
Permission communautaire (qui a accordé la permission).
Les communautés autochtones concernées par le jeu de données
Communautés autochtones dont sont issues les données.
Champ Valeur
Nombre de lignes de données
Pour un jeu de données tabulaire, nombre total de lignes.
Nombre de colonnes de données
Pour un jeu de données tabulaire, nombre total de colonnes uniques.
Nombre de cellules de données
Pour un jeu de données tabulaire, nombre total de cellules contenant des données.
Nombre de relations de données
Pour un jeu de données RDF, nombre total de triplets.
Nombre d’entités
Pour un jeu de données RDF, nombre total d’entités.
Nombre de propriétés de données
Pour un jeu de données RDF, nombre total de propriétés uniques utilisées par les triplets.
Qualité des données
Décrit la qualité des données du jeu de données.
Métrique de qualité des données
Une métrique utilisée pour mesurer la qualité des données, telle que les valeurs manquantes ou les formats invalides.

0 Commentaires

Please login or register to comment.