Bibliothèque des droits des victimes

In this case, Mr. Kampos is charged with attempted murder and other offences related to the use of a firearm. The witness has expressed concerns about his safety and emotional well-being while testifying. The Crown requests that the witness testify behind a screen to facilitate his testimony. The judge grants the Crown's request under section 486.2(2) of the Criminal Code, which allows for testimony behind a screen to be ordered. He takes into account several factors related to the seriousness of the offence, his disabilities and concerns.

As part of this hearing on dangerous offenders, the Crown prosecutor is making a request to allow a complainant to have her pet dog with her while she testifies about the charges of forcible confinement. Judge Maisonville, relying on legal precedents, exercised his discretion to allow the presence of a dog to calm the complainant during her testimony. He emphasised that the presence of a pet is considered beneficial in obtaining a complete and frank account of the alleged offences under section 482.1 of the Criminal Code

The case concerns a defendant convicted of sexually assaulting the complainant. During the trial, a witness, considered ‘highly credible and reliable’ by the judge, was the complainant's boyfriend. The defendant requested to present new evidence in the appeal proceedings to establish that the complainant and the witness had an intimate relationship. The Crown asked the Court of Appeal to define the procedural parameters for the admission of this new evidence, citing sections 276, 278.93 and 278.94 of the Criminal Code, which are intended to protect the dignity and privacy of complainants in sexual assault cases. The question is whether these protections extend to the appeal process. According to the Court, the objectives of protecting the privacy and dignity of complainants are not limited to the trial. It concluded that certain procedures provided for in section 278.93 must be adapted to the context of the appeal.

In this case, the defendant was sentenced to 13 years' imprisonment for kidnapping and unlawful confinement of the victim. The sentencing judge took into account the victims' statements as an aggravating factor, reflecting the importance of justice for victims and recognition of their suffering. Mr. Nguyen appealed the decision. The issue was whether the judge erred in increasing the length of the sentence based on public concern about rising crime and violence in the region and by placing excessive emphasis on general deterrence. The appellant argued that the judge had unduly increased his sentence based on public concern about rising violence in the region. The Court of Appeal rejected this argument, concluding that the 13-year sentence was consistent with case law and the principles of general deterrence and denunciation.

The defendant was found guilty of second-degree murder and sentenced to a mandatory term of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. Mr. Bell appealed his conviction. The issue raised was whether the trial judge had erred in law by placing undue weight on the community impact statement and the defendant's conduct as aggravating circumstances. The defense argued that the community impact statement was inadmissible. The Crown argued that during sentencing, the defense did not challenge the statement. The Court recognized that the community was a victim in the broad sense, but added that the law did not provide for the possibility of making an impact statement on its behalf. It therefore rejected the impact statement made on behalf of the community by the mayor of the town.

In this case, two former vice presidents of Research in Motion (RIM) pleaded guilty to a charge of mischief for disrupting Air Canada flight AC31 between Toronto and Beijing. The incident led to the flight being diverted to Vancouver, resulting in significant costs for Air Canada. The trial judge imposed a suspended sentence with one year of probation and an order to pay restitution of $35,878 each. The defendants appealed, seeking conditional discharge and the removal of the restitution order. The Court of Appeal upheld the suspended sentence, finding that their conduct was “absolutely disgusting” and that discharge would be contrary to the public interest. It concluded that the victims' right to compensation for the harm suffered is an important consideration in determining the sentence, in accordance with section 718(e) of the Criminal Code. However, it reduced the amount of restitution to $10,528 each.

In this case, the defendant pleaded guilty to offences of distributing and possessing child pornography. The prosecution and defence jointly proposed an appropriate sentence of 18 months' imprisonment for possession of child pornography and 12 months for distribution of child pornography. The issue raised was whether the joint proposal by the prosecution and defence regarding the sentence was an appropriate sentence for the offences of distributing and possessing child pornography. The Court found that the joint application was manifestly contrary to the expectations of reasonable persons familiar with the circumstances of the case. The Court emphasised the inherent harm caused by child pornography to both victims and society and stressed the need for a sentence that reflected the seriousness of the offences and the moral culpability of the offender. The decision highlighted the paramount importance of denunciation and deterrence in cases involving child pornography.

L’accusé a été reconnu coupable et condamné de 15 mois de prison pour contacts sexuels et 3 mois pour leurre par internet avec une adolescente de 14 ans. Il fait appel de la décision en demandant une réduction de la peine. La couronne a contesté la clémence de la peine, arguant que la peine devrait être alignée sur celle prévue pour les agressions sexuelles graves. La question était de savoir si la peine infligée pour les infractions visées est manifestement raisonnable. La Cour a jugé que la peine initiale était trop clémente compte tenu de la gravité des infractions et de la nécessité de dissuasion mais a reconnu que l'établissement d'un point de départ de trois ans pour les contacts sexuels graves n'était pas approprié en raison de la variabilité des circonstances entourant chaque cas. La Cour rejette l’appel et augmente la peine pour leurre par Internet à 12 mois.

In this case, the defendant appealed his 16-year sentence for manslaughter. The appellant's position is that the judge should have considered his expression of remorse and his apology as mitigating factors. The accused criticised the judge for considering the enormity of the loss suffered by the family of the deceased victim as an aggravating circumstance. The Crown argued that the sentencing judge's decision was not erroneous in its assessment of the mitigating and aggravating circumstances. The issue raised was whether the sentencing judge erred in failing to give due consideration to the mitigating and aggravating circumstances. The Court noted that victim impact statements play an important role in the criminal justice system. However, it ruled that the sentencing judge erred in considering the loss suffered by the family.

The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) has been acquitted of criminal charges of contempt of court for failing to remove from its website an article identifying a 14-year-old homicide victim, despite a publication ban imposed under section 486.4(2.2) of the Criminal Code. The CBC had published the information before the publication ban was issued. The Crown argued that each new access to the online content constituted a ‘publication’ and ‘transmission’ of information identifying the victim. The defence argued that the information had been published before the injunction. The legal issue raised is whether the first judge erred in law in interpreting the terms ‘published’ and ‘transmitted in any manner’ in section 486.4 of the Criminal Code. The Court dismissed the appeal on the grounds that the terms ‘published’ and ‘transmitted in any manner whatsoever’ did not extend to the continued online availability of content already published after a publication ban had been imposed.