Bibliothèque des droits des victimes

In the context of a sentencing in which 16 VISs would be introduced and in which the accused objected to the form and content of some of the VIS. The court suggested that case law prior to the enactment of the CVBR relating to VISs may not be appropriate under the new regime. The revisions to the Criminal Code permit a court to consider relevant matters and disregards other portions of VIS. The court held that it would disregard irrelevant, prejudicial and inflammatory content and would provide reasons as to what parts of the VIS were admissible. This procedure was held to strike the “appropriate balance” of protecting the rights of offenders and ensuring victims submissions were treated “respectfully and sensibly”.

L’accusé a été inculpé des faits d’agressions sexuelles et a cherché à faire admettre des preuves intrinsèques de son inculpation sur la plaignante. Le ministère public a concédé que les preuves étaient potentiellement admissibles mais a contesté la validité constitutionnelle des articles 278.92 et 278.94 du Code criminel. Le tribunal de première instance a rejeté la demande de l’accusé visant à contester la constitutionnalité des articles visés. La Couronne a fait valoir que les dispositions établissaient un juste équilibre entre les droits à la vie privée et à l’égalité du plaignant et le droit de l’accusé à un procès équitable. La Cour a reconnu que la divulgation préalable des éléments de preuve de la défense au plaignant pouvait avoir une incidence sur le contre-interrogatoire. Toutefois, elle a interprété les dispositions de manière à permettre la tenue de l’audience préliminaire sur l’admissibilité préservant ainsi l’équité du procès et le respect les droits du plaignant.

L’accusé a été inculpé d’agression sexuelle et d’agression causant des lésions corporelles. Dans le cadre de la procédure, l’accusé a demandé des dossiers médicaux pour contester les allégations et établir des incohérences de son récit. La Couronne s’est opposée évoquant des raisons de confidentialité et d’irrecevabilité dans le cadre de la détermination des accusations. La plaignante s’est aussi opposée évoquant les intérêts liés à la vie privée. L’une des questions soulevées était de savoir si le droit à a vie privée du plaignant emportait sur le droit de l’accusé à répondre et à se défendre pleinement en ce qui concerne les documents demandés. La cour a rejeté la demande de production de certains dossiers médicaux en raison de l’absence de pertinence probable ou d’intérêts suffisants en matière de protection de la vie privée l’emportant sur la divulgation.

The defendant was found guilty of possessing and producing child pornography. His activities consisted of using a file-sharing platform to collect, distribute and exchange child pornography over a period of time. The Crown argued for a prison sentence of at least five years, emphasising denunciation and deterrence. It then requested to submit two community impact statements. The defence opposed the filing of both statements. The question was whether these two statements should be admitted. According to the Court, the community statements ‘provide a better understanding of the profound and lasting impact that his behaviour has contributed to inflicting on these victims’. It admitted the statements, concluding that: ‘they accurately reflect the very real pain and suffering that child pornography, its production, possession and distribution inflict on those who are most in need of society's care and protection.’

In this case, the accused was found guilty of sexual offences. The Crown requested to present victim impact statements at sentencing in accordance with section 722 of the Criminal Code and the Canadian Victims' Bill of Rights. The defence objected to certain parts of the statements, arguing that they contained irrelevant material. The issue was whether the victim statements presented by the Crown were admissible in their current form and whether certain parts should be struck out. The court concluded that it was important to strike a balance between the accused's right to a fair trial and the victims' right to express the impact of the crimes, and recognized the legislative framework provided by section 722 of the Criminal Code and the Charter. It admitted the victims' statements in their current form but ordered that certain parts be disregarded at the sentencing stage

In this decision, the defendant was found guilty of sexual assault. The public prosecutor requested a sentence of 2 to 2.5 years, minus the time already spent in pre-trial detention, as well as strict conditions for release on bail. The defence opposed a restraining order against the victim and emphasised the defendant's efforts to reintegrate into society. One of the issues raised was whether it was appropriate to impose a restraining order on the victim as part of the sentence. The Court examined the principles of denunciation and deterrence, taking into account the ‘humiliating and contemptuous behaviour’ of the accused towards the personal integrity of the victim, and ordered that a prohibition on contact with the victim be imposed during the period of detention and probation. This decision is significant in that it highlights the right of victims to protection.

In this case, the claimant brought a defamation action against the defendants, who filed a counterclaim for damages related to the alleged sexual assault. The defendants argue that the claimant should be excluded from the pre-trial examination of the second defendant, who is 14 years old, due to the significant psychological harm and distress that this would cause him. The plaintiff asserted his inherent right to be present during the pre-trial examination. The issue was whether the plaintiff should be excluded from the pre-trial examination of the minor due to the alleged psychological harm it would cause him. The court recognised the inherent right of the parties to be present during pre-trial examinations, but emphasised that this right was not absolute. It determined that the claimant's right to observe the examination could be preserved through technological accommodations. This approach balanced the claimant's procedural rights with the need to protect the minor's mental health.

The defendant, one of three accused, assaulted a vulnerable stranger at a bus station. The victim suffered significant harm. The incident was captured on CCTV cameras and the video was widely circulated by the police and media in order to identify the perpetrators. The victim's identity was protected by publication bans during the previous proceedings. These bans were imposed under sections 517 and 539 of the Code. The Crown argued in favour of the ban, citing the risk of harm to the victim if his name and diagnosis were disclosed. The legal question was whether the ban on publishing the victim's identity was in the interests of the proper administration of justice under section 486.5 of the Code. The Court concluded that the publication ban was necessary to prevent further harm to the victim and to ensure the proper administration of justice.

The accused was found guilty of sexually assaulting E.H. During sentencing, the Crown asked that a statement from the victim's father be admitted, describing the emotional and physical harm suffered by himself and his family. The question was whether section 722 of the Criminal Code allows for the admissibility of a statement by the victim written by a member of the direct victim's family. The Crown argued that D.H., the victim's father, was a ‘victim’ who had suffered emotional or physical harm. The defence argued that only the direct victim, E.H., could provide a victim statement. The court emphasised that victim statements are intended to provide a comprehensive understanding of the harm caused by the offence, including its impact on the victim's family and community. It concluded that excluding D.H.'s statement would leave a gap in the understanding of the overall impact of the offence on all victims directly affected.

The defendant was charged with impaired driving causing death to four people and serious injury to two others. The court emphasized the seriousness of his actions, particularly the devastating impact on the families and the community. He was sentenced to 10 years in prison, with credit for 8 months of time served, and a 12-year driving ban following his release. In this case, the victims' families expressed their pain and loss in victim impact statements, which were taken into account by the court in determining the sentence. The court also ordered Marco Muzzo to pay a compensatory surcharge to the victims, reflecting an attempt to make symbolic reparation for the harm caused.