The teen who lit her classmate on fire at a Saskatoon high school will serve the maximum sentence available under the Youth Criminal Justice Act for the crime of attempted murder, a judge ruled Monday.
At the young offender’s sentencing hearing last month, the Crown and defence jointly recommended the three-year sentence, which will consist of two years in secure custody followed by one year of community supervision.
Justice Krista Zerr gave her decision in Saskatoon Court of King’s Bench after taking a couple of weeks to reflect on the case.
She said listening to the victim impact statements last month was, at times, “like an emotional gut punch … when just for a moment, or perhaps a minute, I am able to see clearly the impact of what you have endured and continue to endure.”
She noted the toll of the crime is immense.
“The ripples are wide, and still widening. Lives have been divided into before and after,” Zerr said.
The teen has been in custody since the date of the attack, and her sentence will be on top of her time on remand. It will be served under the intensive rehabilitative custody and supervision (IRCS) program, a therapeutic option for youth suffering from a mental illness or disorder who are convicted of the most serious offences.
The young offender was 14 years old when she poured flammable liquid over the 15-year-old victim’s head and lit it on fire in a hallway at Evan Hardy Collegiate on Sept. 5, 2024. The identities of both teens, who are now 16, are protected under the Youth Criminal Justice Act.
The victim suffered burns to 40 per cent of her body and spent months in hospital. Her recovery has continued to be long and painful, with multiple surgeries, scarring and disfigurement.
On Monday, a friend read a statement outside court on behalf of the family. They said they are glad the court case is now concluded, but they’re disappointed in the short duration of the sentence.
“We can now just focus on our family. We have room to breathe and to move on, helping our daughter to continue on her healing journey,” the family said in their statement.
“We did everything we thought we could to prevent this tragedy. No one should have gotten hurt.”
In the months leading up to the attack, the girl and her family reported their concerns to school authorities and to police about how the teen was harassing their daughter and her friend. While a safety plan that included close supervision and bag checks was implemented, it failed.
The victim’s best friend spoke to reporters outside court on Monday. As a youth witness of crime, she cannot be identified.
“This case shows what happens when students’ concerns aren’t taken seriously. We shouldn’t have to fight this hard just to be heard and to feel safe in our own school,” she said.
“Although the court process is all over, the weight in my chest will never leave.”
The teen victim was “robbed of her Grade 10 year” — and although she is attending a new school now, her Grade 12 graduation will be pushed back at least a year as she catches up and slowly integrates back into school, her mother said in court last month, reading from her victim impact statement.
It feels like the offender “attacked the whole family,” she said, and they don’t know when or where they will actually be able to feel safe again.
Why not an adult sentence?
The Crown initially indicated it would seek an adult sentence for the teen, but changed its position last year. Crown prosecutor Zachary Huywan explained the change in court last month, acknowledging that many people in the community could find it “probably shocking.”
He spoke about a recent Supreme Court of Canada decision that provided guidelines on when it’s appropriate to seek an adult sentence. The application can’t be based simply on how horrific a crime is, but instead should only be done in cases where the Crown can prove “beyond a reasonable doubt” that the offender had “adult-like” age, maturity and capacity for moral judgment, Huywan said.
In the Supreme Court case, the judges set aside an adult sentence imposed on a 17-year-old offender in a violent first-degree murder case. They found the sentencing judge had imposed the wrong standard by over-emphasizing the seriousness of the crime rather than looking at the circumstances and developmental age of the offender.
Last year, a 15-year-old was severely burned at Evan Hardy Collegiate in Saskatoon in an alleged attack by another student. Now, she is telling the story in her words. Warning: This story contains distressing details.
In the case of the fiery attempted murder in Saskatoon, the offender was 14 years old and has been diagnosed with a number of mental disorders. She is “not a high-functioning individual,” Huywan said, and lacks social and emotional maturity.
Her defence lawyers, Fola Adelugba and Jonathan Stockdale, emphasized that the intensive youth sentence would offer the best chance for rehabilitation and reintegration. The programming is designed to address the “underlying factors” that led to the offender’s behaviour, Adelugba said.
Addressing the youth during sentencing on Monday, the judge said she has a lot of hard work ahead of her.
“You have said that you are sorry, and going forward … you must work very hard, as hard as you can, to understand the feelings and thoughts and behaviours that place you at risk for committing violence,” Zerr said.
“You must be honest … with yourself and your treatment team. There can be no hiding, no lies,” she said. “You must be vigilant and you must be honest.”
On Monday in Saskatoon Court of King’s Bench, the teen who lit her classmate on fire at Evan Hardy Collegiate in 2024 was sentenced to three years. It’s the maximum sentence available for attempted murder, under the Youth Criminal Justice Act. Crown prosecutor Zachary Huywan explained to reporters why they did not seek an adult sentence.
