Victims Law Library

This decision concerns a request by the CBC to unseal an Information To Be Obtained (“ITO”) in the context of the mass shooting that took place in Nova Scotia in 2020. The Crown argued that the ITO contained information relating to victims and witnesses that should not be disclosed. The CBC argued that since the perpetrator of the shooting had died and no charges had been laid in the criminal justice system, the rights of victims in the CVBR were irrelevant. The Court rejected the CBC's position that it had an obligation to ensure that an appropriate procedure was in place to enable victims' rights to be taken into account in all aspects of the criminal justice system, including in the context of an unsealing application, and that the rights were “[...] fundamental rights”.

The accused falsely represented himself as a lawyer, advising and representing clients in immigration matters, resulting in charges under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA). The Alberta Provincial Court noted that the CVBR included violations of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA) as “offences” and that, consequently, the restitution provisions of the Criminal Code applied to IRPA offences. The Court noted that the CVBR had amended the restitution provisions to indicate that the offender's financial means would not prevent a court from making a restitution order. The Court recognized that, while restitution plays an important role in the criminal justice system, a court should not order restitution where it is not sought. The Court ordered restitution for victims who submitted a statement and whose financial losses were verifiable, underlining the importance of not making restitution lightly.

In this case, the Ontario Court of Appeal considered an appeal of a sentence imposed for a fraud over $5,000, in which numerous investors were defrauded of a total of over $400,000 as part of a Ponzi scheme. One of the issues raised in the appeal was whether the Court should have ordered restitution to a victim who had clearly requested restitution in his statement, but who had not filled out a specific form to request restitution. The Court noted that the victim had clearly requested restitution, and that if the judge had decided to reject the request, he would have been obliged to state his reasons for doing so. Consequently, the Court considered that the failure to order the requested restitution was most likely an omission on the part of the judge, and decided that the amount of restitution requested should be ordered.

In this case, the Supreme Court of British Columbia considered an application on behalf of a victim to allow her to testify outside the courtroom in a trial involving allegations of multiple sexual offences against her. The Court recognized that the victim was a vulnerable Indigenous woman suffering from substance abuse and anxiety disorders. The Court noted that the CVBR had changed the criteria for using a screen or closed-circuit television system to collect victim testimony. Prior to the CVBR, the criteria required that the testimony assistance be ‘necessary’ to ensure a truthful account from the victim. The new provision established the criteria that the proposed accommodation would ‘facilitate’ the victim's full and truthful account. In addition, the new provision only required that the proposed accommodation be in the interests of the proper administration of justice.

This case considered a request from a victim, who did not initially request her identity to be protected in a criminal harassment context, but requested that the contents of her VIS be subject to a publication order. The Court noted the requirement in the CVBR to consider the security and privacy of a victim. It considered that itw as necessary to balance the vicitm’s privacy with the general principles of transparency in judicial proceedings. The victim suggested that, due to the private nature of the effects that the harassment had on her life, and given her employment situation, she would not be willing to provide a VIS, if the contents of the statement were to be made public. The Court utltimately found that it would not be in the interests of jusitce to impose a publication ban on the content of a VIS.

In this case, the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench ruled on sentencing for dangerous driving offences that caused the deaths of three people, as well as for hit-and-run offences. The Court indicated that it had received 63 individual victim impact statements or community impact statements. The Court adopted the approach from previous case law that a victim impact statement is an opportunity to treat victims with compassion and dignity by allowing them to express the effects that the crime has had on their lives. The Court suggested that the role of a VIS was ‘communicative’ or ‘expressive,’ as opposed to ‘instrumental,’ in relation to increasing the length of a sentence. The Court noted that the impact on a victim should not ‘unduly’ increase the sentence (para 49).

In this case, the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal considered an appeal brought by an offender convicted of assaulting a family member after breaking into the latter's garage, in the context of a family dispute over the use and ownership of agricultural equipment. The Court noted that the CVBR represented a step toward greater consideration of the victim's perspective and their voice in the sentencing process. The Court also noted that ‘legally, the negative impact on a victim as expressed in a victim impact statement is an important factor to be considered in determining the sentence.’ However, the Court noted that the effect on a victim is only one factor among many and that it would be legally incorrect to give it excessive weight.

This decision was handed down in a case of gender-based domestic violence in an indigenous community. The Court strongly criticised the plea agreement negotiated between the Crown and the defence counsel, pointing out that it did not address the serious issues of gender-based violence against Indigenous women and girls and did not highlight the aggravating nature of the assaults committed by the accused. The Court expressed deep concern about a systemic issue related to the Crown's failure to ensure that victims were informed of their right to submit a victim impact statement to the Court. It stated that since the Victims' Bill of Rights came into force, the Crown had continued to regularly ask this Court to sentence offenders without informing victims of their right to be heard. The judge adjourned the case so that the victim could be informed of her right to submit a statement...

In this case, the defendant was charged with manslaughter. The question was whether the defendant could benefit from a reduction in sentence for the time spent on bail. The prosecution opposed any reduction in the defendant's sentence, while the defence requested a reduction on the grounds of the time the defendant had spent on bail. In determining the sentence, the Court considered any statement by the victim ‘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’. However, it considered that ‘the impact of the offence on the victims does not mean that a sentence should be used for the purposes of revenge’. The Court rejected the defence's request and imposed an additional sentence, reflecting the need to denounce the offender and deter others from committing similar acts.

In this case, the defendant was charged with sexually touching a minor. The court was asked to determine the appropriate sentence for the defendant for the sexual offences committed. The court took into account several factors, including the victims' statements. Neither the Crown nor the defence raised any objections to the victims' statements. However, in this case, the Court recognised the decisive role of the victim's statement in the sentencing process, stating: "The victims' statements read out in court enable the offender to realise the consequences of his actions. They also enable the judge responsible for determining the sentence to realise the damage caused to the victim and, indirectly, to the community in general. However, it is important that victim statements do not contain elements that could distract the judge from his task ...".