Victims Law Library

The Public Disclosure Act, Chapter P-36.1 of the Statutes of Saskatchewan, establishes a framework for the disclosure of information about individuals who pose a significant risk of causing serious harm to others. The Act sets out the procedures to be followed by police services in seeking advice on whether to disclose information, taking into account the privacy interests of victims. (section 7(2)(c).

The provincial law regulates the management and allocation of property resulting from judicial decisions of forfeiture or forced administration. It provides for the creation of a Nova Scotia Forfeiture Account to compensate eligible victims. (section 3 , 4 and 5 (1) (b)

The Territorial Court Act of the Northwest Territories establishes the structure, duties and responsibilities of the Territorial Court, which is a court of record composed of territorial judges. It incorporates into these provisions the protection of the privacy of victims or witnesses in criminal justice proceedings (section 31.6(8)).

The parties in the case were involved in a dispute concerning custody, visitation rights, and child support. During the family proceedings, the husband and his new partner launched a social media campaign to intimidate the wife and encourage her to abandon the proceedings. The plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking an order requiring the defendants to cease cyberbullying, remove the posts, and refrain from contacting her. She also claimed damages. The judge granted the request and concluded that the defendants had posted vicious messages on Facebook with the malicious intent of harming the plaintiff's health or well-being in order to compel her to change her legal position in the family matter. The court prohibited any further communication and publication of cyberbullying messages. It then awarded $50,000 in general damages, $20,000 in enhanced damages, and $15,000 in punitive damages, for a total of

Decision on sentencing in a case where a person responsible for caring for a child assaulted that child, which took into account the appropriate use of VIS. The CVBR has ‘refined’ the existing provisions relating to VIS, the principles previously applied can be summarised as follows: the victim is not a party to the criminal proceedings, the public prosecutor represents the community and the accused is the only other party. A VIS adds a necessary voice to the sentencing hearing, but sentencing is not intended to provide personal redress to the victim, except in relation to restitution. Revenge and retribution have no role to play in sentencing. A victim cannot present facts relating to an offence. The victim cannot address the offender directly, but must address the court and limit themselves to discussing the harm suffered and the impact of the offence. Victims cannot criticise the offender. Victims cannot recommend a particular sentence...

This case arose in connection with a conviction for sexual assault and sexual exploitation of an 18-year-old victim in the accused's care. The court adopted the following approach to VIS: Victim impact statements were prepared and read aloud in court by the victim MED and her mother LC, in accordance with section 722 of the Criminal Code. This section stipulates that, in determining the sentence to be imposed, the court must consider any victim impact statement describing the physical or emotional harm, property damage or economic loss suffered by the victim as a result of the offence and the impact of the offence on the victim. The importance of these considerations was codified by the Victims' Bill of Rights Act, S.C. 2015, c. 13, and its amendments to the provisions of the Criminal Code relating to sentencing, most of which came into force in July 2015

The defendant was charged with second-degree murder after stabbing someone at a party where all participants were heavily intoxicated. The defendant was released on bail. The court noted that under the recently enacted CVBR, it was required to indicate in the record that the safety and security of each victim had been considered. The court provided the definition in section 2 of the CVBR and concluded as follows on the issue of safety: The victim in this case is deceased. During the pleadings, I invited the Crown to provide me with its observations on this issue, but I was informed that there were no concerns regarding the victim's safety. Although I have considered the safety of each victim of the offence, as I am now required to do in bail applications, I am satisfied that nothing in the circumstances before me suggests that such a risk exists.

In this case, publication bans had been ordered with respect to the identity of a young person in the context of charges of sexual assault and child pornography. One young person requested that the publication ban be lifted. The court noted that the publication ban relating to child pornography was mandatory, but that the publication ban relating to sexual assault was not. The court noted that the publication bans were not meant to be for the benefit for the accused, but were meant to be for the benefit of the victim, and that the victim’s position should be respected. The judge refused to interpret the provisions of the Criminal Code as giving the Crown control over whether a publication ban should be rescinded as this would give the Crown an “inordinate” authority and would have the effect “ignoring the express wishes of victims”.

This case related to a review of the decision of a trial judge who refused to order a publication ban of the identity of a doctor in the context of the prosecution of a pro-life activist charged with two counts of breach of probation, mischief and interference with property at a medical facility that provided abortion services. The court noted that the provisions relating to publication bans were modified by the CVBR which changed from the requirement of “significant harm” to the requirement of “harm”. The court noted that the test provided by the revisions to the Criminal Code brought about by the CVBR required the trial judge to take into account all of the factors listed in section 486.5 of the Criminal Code. The court found that the trial judge applied the wrong test and reversed the trial judge’s decision not to order a publication ban.

In the context of a mass shooting at a school in Saskatchewan, the prosecutor obtained a discretionary publication ban on the identity of the victims under section 486.5 of the Criminal Code. The prosecutor also obtained a mandatory publication ban under section 486.4(2.2) regarding the identities of victims who were minors at the time of the incident. Several national media outlets opposed the discretionary publication ban and challenged the constitutionality of the mandatory publication ban. The Court ruled that section 486.4(2.2) did not meet the Charter test required to justify its infringement on the right to freedom of expression and therefore would not apply that section. With respect to the discretionary publication ban, the Court rejected the prosecutor's argument that the CVBR elevated the protection of victims ‘to the status of a constitutional right.’ On this point, the Court found that the rights guaranteed by the Charter prevailed over the CVBR.