Bibliothèque des droits des victimes

The accused is charged with multiple sexual offences against his former partner's daughter. The complainant, who was between the ages of thirteen and seventeen at the time of the offences and is now eighteen, is described as shy and nervous about testifying. The Crown has applied for an order allowing the complainant to testify outside the courtroom and in the presence of a support person, relying on sections 486.1(2) and 486.2(2) of the Criminal Code. The accused objected to the complainant's testimony, arguing that it was an opinion on the fundamental issue. Should the complainant be allowed to testify outside the courtroom? He held that allowing the complainant to testify outside the courtroom would facilitate a full and truthful account and would be in the interests of the administration of justice.

The accused was charged with sexual assault and unlawful confinement. The complainant expressed anxiety about testifying in court, stating that the courtroom setting would make her feel nauseous and limit her ability to give a full account of the events. The Crown argued that the complainant should be allowed to testify via closed-circuit television. The defence argued that the complainant's testimony should be given in person in the courtroom. Should the complainant be allowed to testify via closed-circuit television under section 486.2(2) of the Criminal Code? The Court recognized that the legal threshold for allowing a witness to testify remotely or behind a screen had been lowered under amended section 486.2(2), which previously required that the testimony be ‘necessary’ to ‘facilitate’ a full and frank account or to serve the interests of the proper administration of justice. The Court granted the Crown's application and allowed the complainant to testify by closed-circuit television.

In this case, Mr. Kippomee was charged with burglary, probation violations, and possession of stolen property, with a proposed sentence deemed too lenient by the judge. The prosecution requested a stay of proceedings for the third charge. A joint submission was made, proposing one month in prison and 12 months of probation. The judge initially expressed concerns about the request, considering it too lenient and not in line with sentencing principles. He then emphasised the importance of considering the impact on victims when determining the sentence, stating that victims of crime have the right to be heard by the court. They may read aloud or submit a victim impact statement. These statements highlight the real impact of criminal acts on people's lives. One cannot judge a criminal act without understanding how deeply its victims have been hurt. These statements help to ensure that victims are not ignored in the sentencing process.

The defendant was convicted of making an intentionally misleading statement to the police about Matthew Penney, whom she was investigating for murder. The defence argues that the offence for which the defendant was convicted does not allow the Criminal Code definition of ‘victim’ to be applied to the affected persons and that, therefore, the victims' statements cannot be admissible. The prosecution considers that the victim's relatives are considered victims. The question was whether the victims' statements could be admitted. According to the Court, the offence committed by the defendant was not limited to the death of Mr Penney. By deceiving the police, the investigation was prolonged, which exacerbated the emotional suffering of the victim's relatives. Consequently, the crime committed and the false statement cannot be separated. The Court concluded that the victim's relatives could submit impact statements that should focus on the impact of the false statement and not on the murder.

L’affaire concerne M. Denny un délinquant autochtone souffrant de trouble de la personnalité antisocial et de problème de polytoxicomanie. Après avoir consommée de la cocaïne et de l’alcool, il a agressé par hasard la victime sans provocation et lui a infligé des coups ayant causé son décès. Il a plaidé coupable d’homicide involontaire et invoque des circonstances atténuantes lors de la détermination de la peine. Le Ministère public a plaidé en faveur des facteurs aggravants. Plusieurs questions de droit ont été soulevées dont celles de savoir quels sont les principes qui régissent l’utilisation des déclarations d’impact des victimes et de la collectivité par le tribunal ? Le juge a souligné que bien que les déclarations soient essentielles pour reconnaître la souffrance des familles, elles ne doivent pas dicter la sentence, ni compromettre l’équité procédurale. Ainsi, la sentence doit rester fondée sur les principes de proportionnalité, de réhabilitation et de justice réparatrice.

The appellant was convicted on three counts of intentionally or recklessly causing damage by fire to camps in the Serpentine Lake area of New Brunswick, as well as one count of causing damage by fire to a camp with the intent to defraud an insurance company. The fires were set to obtain insurance compensation and resolve a difficult financial situation. The question was whether the judge erred in ordering compensation. The Court concluded that the trial judge had failed to consider several factors relevant to the award of compensation, including the appellant's obvious inability to pay the amounts ordered and the impact of those orders on his chances of rehabilitation. Consequently, the compensation orders were set aside...

Dans cette affaire, les policiers se sont fondés sur cet article pour intercepter des communications privées sans mandat ni autorisation lorsque la fille d’une présumée victime d’enlèvement a commencé à recevoir des appels de son père, qui affirmait être séquestré par des ravisseurs qui voulaient obtenir une rançon. Le juge du procès a conclu que l’art. 184.4 portait atteinte au droit garanti par l’art. 8 de la charte d’être protégé contre les fouilles, les perquisitions et les saisies abusives. Le ministère public a porté la déclaration d’inconstitutionnalité en appel directement à la Cour. Il était question de savoir si cette interception était constitutionnelle. La Cour a conclu que bien que cette disposition soit conçue pour des situations d’urgence afin de prévenir des dommages sérieux et imminents, elle viole l’article 8 de la Charte canadienne des droits et libertés en raison de l’absence de l’obligation de donner un avis aux victimes.

A defendant has been charged with first-degree murder of a person under the age of 18. At the request of the Crown, a mandatory prohibition on publishing or disseminating in any manner any information that could identify the victim was issued under section 486.4(2.2) of the Criminal Code. Prior to the issuance of the publication ban, the SRC posted information on its website that revealed the victim's identity. Faced with the SRC's refusal to remove the information, the Crown sought a criminal contempt order. The bench judge concluded that he had not satisfied the requirements for a mandatory interlocutory injunction and dismissed the application. The Court of Appeal reversed that decision, but the Supreme Court allowed the CBC's appeal, concluding that the Crown had not satisfied the test set out in RJR-MacDonald to obtain such an injunction.

In this case, the accused and the complainant began a relationship described as ‘friends with benefits’ during which the complainant alleged that she was sexually assaulted. The defence sought to introduce evidence relating to this relationship, which was admitted at trial. The Alberta Court of Appeal found that the trial judge had erred in admitting this evidence under section 276 of the Criminal Code. The court ordered a new trial, concluding that "in sexual assault cases, evidence relating to the complainant's sexual history - if used to suggest that the complainant was more likely to have consented to the sexual activity in question or that they are generally less credible - compromises the search for truth and threatens the complainant's rights to equality, privacy and security." The Court ruled that evidence of a ‘friends with benefits’ relationship between the accused and the complainant in this case was not admissible.

The accused was charged with sexual assault and sexual contact. He applied under section 276 of the Criminal Code for leave to cross-examine the complainant about her prior sexual conduct. The trial judge denied the application and convicted the accused. The Court of Appeal upheld the accused's appeal and ruled that the conclusion was wrong. It ordered a new trial. The question raised was how section 276 of the Criminal Code applies when the accused seeks to cross-examine the complainant to challenge evidence of previous sexual behaviour. The Supreme Court held that where targeted cross-examination of the complainant is permitted, ‘the trial judge must strike the delicate balance of giving the prosecutor sufficient latitude to conduct an effective cross-examination while minimising the adverse effect on the complainant and on the judicial process’. The Court rejected the defence's argument and upheld the inadmissibility of the complainant's prior sexual conduct evidence.