Victims Law Library

In this case, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice was considering an application to strike out a claim and a dispute with respect to standing. The statement of claim was made against the London Police Service, claiming that its high rate of finding sexual assault complaints to be “unfounded” was contrary to equality rights of victims of alleged sexual assaults pursuant to section 15 of the Charter. The Court refused to strike out the claim, holding that it was not obvious that the claim could not succeed. Furthermore, the Court permitted public interest standing on the part of a clinic that represented the interests of women subject to gendered violence. In addition, the Court refused to strike out a request for a remedy that included a Court-supervised review of sexual assault cases that the defendants had closed as unfounded.

In this case, an accused challenged the constitutionality of section 33.1 of the Criminal Code, which prevented an accused from relying on the defence of extreme intoxication, even for offences of general intent. The CVBR is not specifically mentioned in the case, but in considering whether the section of the Criminal Code violated the Charter, the Court made it clear that the legislation was intended to address the fact that violence occurring while in a state of extreme intoxication was of particular concern to women and children, as they were most often the victims. The Court found that this factor should not be taken into consideration in determining whether there was a violation of the accused's rights under section 7. However, it found that this systemic factor was a legitimate concern in the analysis of whether a violation of section 7 could be justified in a free and democratic society.

In this case, the Provincial Court of British Columbia considered replacing an undertaking with a judicial interim release with the conditions in the context of domestic violence allegations. There was a dispute between the parties with respect to both the ownership of real property and the ownership of personal property. The Court was clear that it was not its role to adjudicate the property disputes but held that it was required by section 515(13) of the Criminal Code to consider the safety and security of every victim. The Court noted that there was potentially a difference between “safety” and “security”, and held that “security” could include the psychological and mental health of the victim. In the result, the Court crafted a solution whereby some personal property, admitted by the victim to belong to the accused, was to be placed off the property to be collected by the accused

In this case, an accused sought disclosure of text messages and photographs in possession of the complainant which had been sent between the complainant and her friend. The decision focused on whether a witness should be provided with state-funded counsel to argue that her private information should not be disclosed. The Court characterized the dispute before it as “an Accused’s right to full answer and defence versus a witness/complainant’s privacy rights”. The Court noted in a footnote: “Notably the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights…requires that courts consider victims’ privacy rights in criminal proceedings” The Court did recognize that Charter protections may also accrue to witnesses and complainants, but suggested that these rights were not given the “same prominence” as an accused’s right.

In this sexual assault case, the prosecution sought to limit disclosure in the proceedings by requiring that some of the information be communicated only to the lawyer and not to the accused individually. The accused felt that he should have access to everything and asked the Court to review the Crown's exercise of its discretion in relation to disclosure. The Court noted that there had been significant developments in case law and legislative changes recognising the rights of victims, including their right to dignity, privacy and respectful treatment throughout the criminal proceedings. The Court balanced the accused's right to a full and fair defence against the complainants' rights to privacy. As a result, the Court limited disclosure to counsel, as requested by the Crown.

This decision primarily concerned the defendant's request to file a section 278.92 motion mid-trial, rather than having to file it before the trial began. In reviewing the history of the legislative framework protecting victims of sexual assault, the Court noted that the CVBR requires that plaintiffs be informed of a number of rights, as well as personal safety as a balancing factor in determining conditions of production. Similarly, the Supreme Court of Canada had recognized the protection of rights prior to the adoption of the Charter. The Court noted that Criminal Code protections for sexual assault must be applied in a way that balances the accused's right to a full and fair defence with the rights of the complainant. Accordingly, the Court authorized the use of section 278.92 during the trial, rather than before it began.

The accused challenged the constitutionality of section 278.92 of the Criminal Code in cases involving sexual offences. The Court noted that the right to privacy, security and dignity of complainants, as set out in sections 7, 8, 15 and 28 of the Charter, had been recognized in numerous cases prior to the adoption of the Criminal Code and enshrined in the CVBR. The Court noted that section 278.92 of the Criminal Code was designed to encourage victims of sexual violence to report sexual offences, knowing that they would be treated fairly in the criminal justice system. With respect to the overbreadth argument, the Court ensures that complainants' Charter rights - to privacy, security, dignity and equality under sections 7, 15 and 28 - are fully considered, appreciated and respected in cases where a court is called upon to rule on the admissibility of evidence relating to their other sexual activities; [...]".

In this case, the Alberta Provincial Court had to determine the appropriate sentence for an offender who had a family relationship with the victims. The offender had pleaded guilty to child pornography charges involving victims aged 7 to 10. The court considered whether it should unseal the photographs of the young victims in order to determine an appropriate sentence for the offender. The court noted that the CVBR required it to consider the safety and privacy of the victims. The Court also referred to article 14 of the CVBR, which states that victims have the right to have their views taken into consideration. It ruled that it was not necessary to view the photographs in order to understand the nature of the offences, and decided that the views of the family members would be respected.

The case concerned a murder that remained unsolved at the time of the request. Redacted ITOs had been provided, but the news agency wished to obtain all the unredacted documents. The Court noted that the interests at stake included the public's interest in knowing about the investigation, as well as the protection of an ongoing investigation and the need to avoid further victimization of the victims and their families. The specific issue before the Court was whether unredacted disclosure should be granted prior to the final decision on unsealing. The Court declined to require that the documents remain unredacted pending the decision on the motion. The Court considered it necessary to avoid “a hierarchical approach to rights, which places certain rights above others”. The Court noted that there were important privacy interests of witnesses and third parties that could implicate the rights guaranteed by the Canadian Charter of Victims' Rights..

In this case, the CBC argued that if victims wished their concerns to be heard, they should file an application in accordance with the provisions of the penal code, provide affidavits and submit to cross-examination. The Court rejected this approach. It examined the general provisions of the CVBR and drew an analogy with the Penal Code provisions on victim impact statements in order to develop a process for victims to have their concerns heard. The Court determined that victims had a clear right “to express their views” and “to have those views taken into consideration”. It also ruled that victims should have the right to submit a document entitled “victim impact statement” setting out their concerns about their identity or privacy. Furthermore, the Court adopted the reasoning of the case law on victim statements, indicating that cross-examination would be limited to situations where the victim was called to testify orally.