Lethbridge, Alta., teen handed 12 months probation for one punch

A Lethbridge youth has been given probation for an attack on a fellow student during a school basketball game that left the victim with serious facial injuries. (File)

A Lethbridge youth has been given probation for an attack on a fellow student during a school basketball game that left the victim with serious facial injuries.

Last month, Justice P.G. Pharo of Alberta Court of Justice in Lethbridge said C.F., a 14-year-old boy, punched the victim, another youth identified as E.C., once in the mouth after he was pushed during a school basketball game.

The attack, which only consisted of the single punch, left E.C. with multiple fractures in his upper jaw and displaced at least three teeth, Pharo wrote.

According to an agreed statement of facts, included in Pharo’s decision on May 28, 2025, the pair of youths were playing a game of basketball with their class on Jan. 27, 2024.

“During the basketball game, at one point E.C. blocked C.F., and said something to him, which caused C.F. to get angry,” Pharo wrote.

“E.C. was also getting mad and was hitting C.F. when he went to shoot. At one point, C.F. went on a break away and E.C. pushed him and grabbed the ball out of his hands. C.F. then punched E.C. in the mouth.”

Treatment for his injuries involved wiring of the bone, sutures and the extraction of one tooth, along with extensive periods of pain medication.

C.F. was bullied, judge says

C.F. pleaded guilty in the attack and his counsel submitted that he had been bullied by the victim and the victim’s friends extensively.

Pharo said a presentence report (PSR) showed that abuse took the form of name calling, threatening and physical altercations.

“The PSR says that C.F. accepts responsibility and has remorse for his actions. He says he feels like he should have shown more self-control in the moment. However, C.F. also stated that he felt like his actions were justified because he was being bullied by E.C.,” Pharo wrote.

C.F.’s counsel sought a conditional discharge in the case, saying the teen was young, had no criminal record and came from a stable, supportive home.

Prosecutors disputed the defence’s position, saying a conditional discharge was not appropriate in the case.

Pharo agreed with the Crown, saying “the sanction must be proportionate to the seriousness of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the young person for that offence.”

“These injuries resulted from one punch in the face, but they are very serious. The injuries resulted in much pain and trauma to the E.C., and the consequences are permanent, likely requiring lifelong treatment,” he wrote.

Pharo sided with the Crown, finding a 12-month probation order was justified, which would protect C.F.’s prospects and ensure his proper rehabilitation.

“It does not appear that there is much difference between a conditional discharge and a probation order with respect to employment prospects of C.F. at this point, because they both involve a finding of guilt, but not a conviction.

As I understand it, that means that if C.F. is asked by a prospective employer if he has ever had a conviction, he can answer in the negative.”

Pharo denied the Crown’s application for restation on behalf of E.C. in the amount of $1,701.92 for dental treatment.

He said while he was “sympathetic” to the claim, the provisions of the Youth Criminal Justice Act state the court must consider the “present and future means” of C.F.

“There was no evidence that he will have any means to pay in the immediate future. Therefore, based on these provisions, the application for restitution must be denied.”