The Evolution of Victims’ Rights in Canada

By GS

For much of Canadian legal history, the criminal justice system treated crime as a dispute between the state and the accused, leaving victims largely peripheral. Although victims were essential to investigations and prosecutions, they had few recognized rights and little access to information or participation.[i] Over time, public policy has shifted from this exclusion toward recognizing the importance of supporting and involving victims more fully in the justice process.[ii] This evolution, while a positive step forward, remains incomplete: victims’ rights are still unevenly implemented, weakly enforced, and lack constitutional protection. This blog briefly traces the trajectory of victims’ rights in the Canadian criminal justice system from marginalization to limited legal recognition and identifies the structural gaps that continue to stifle meaningful enforcement.

Origins: The Charter and Victims’ Bill of Rights

A pivotal moment in the modern recognition of victims’ interests was the enactment of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms in 1982.[iii] While the Charter does not confer rights directly on victims, it transformed the legal landscape by constitutionalizing procedural fairness and individual dignity, thereby opening space for broader victim participation in the justice process.[iv] Prior to its adoption, victims were often uninformed about the status of their cases, learning outcomes only when called to testify or through the media.[v] The Charter was instrumental in this transformation, as it opened the door for individuals beyond the Crown and the accused to assert rights within the justice process.[vi] It also influenced legislative initiatives that advanced both the procedural and substantive welfare of victims, shaping provincial and territorial legislation to provide a consistent standard of treatment for victims and witnesses in criminal proceedings.[vii]

In 1986, Manitoba became the first province to enact a Victims’ Bill of Rights, marking the beginning of a nationwide shift toward a formal recognition of victims’ interests.[viii] Following suit, all provinces and territories eventually adopted similar legislation, granting victims the right to be treated with respect and dignity and to receive information about investigations and court proceedings in which they are involved.[ix] While these statutes granted victims the right to information, they did not clearly assign that responsibility to police, Crown counsel, or victim services to provide it, placing the burden on victims to have to seek out that information themselves.[x] Subsequently, because these pieces of legislation varied across jurisdictions, the scope of victims’ entitlements and the mechanisms for enforcing them was inconsistent, contributing to uneven and unenforceable protection across Canada.[xi]

Expanding Participation: Victim Impact Statements

Throughout the latter half of the 1980’s, reform to increase the rights of victims’ continued at the federal level.[xii] Efforts were made to make trials more responsive to victims by eliminating outdated evidentiary and procedural rules that contributed to re-victimization.[xiii] This reform continued with the introduction of victim impact statements through Bill C-89 in 1988.[xiv] These statements allowed victims to describe the physical, emotional, financial, and psychological impacts of crime at sentencing.[xv] Initially, this right was constrained by judicial discretion, but this right was eventually codified in the Criminal Code in 1999.[xvi] These amendments also expanded definition of “victim,” allowed for multiple victim impact statements to be submitted in a single proceeding, and gave victims the right to read them aloud in court.[xvii] Sentencing judges were also placed under a duty to ensure that victims were informed of this opportunity.[xviii] These changes marked an important recognition of victims’ voices, though courts have remained reluctant to treat such participatory rights as constitutionally protected.[xix]

The Absence of Constitutional Status

Judicial resistance to constitutionalizing victims’ rights was confirmed in the 1999 case Vanscoy v. Ontario, where the Ontario Supreme Court rejected the claim that victims possess constitutionally protected participatory rights.[xx] This position has largely endured in the following decades, leaving victims’ entitlements grounded in statute rather than constitutional law.[xxi] As a result, the enforceability of these rights depends more on legislative design and administrative goodwill rather than entrenched constitutional guarantees.[xxii]

The Canadian Victims Bill of Rights (2015)

The most comprehensive federal reform to strengthen victims’ rights came through the enactment of the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights (CVBR) in 2015.[xxiii] The CVBR defined a “victim” broadly as anyone who has suffered physical or emotional harm, economic loss, or property damage as a result of a crime committed in Canada.[xxiv] It also established four primary rights for victims: to information, protection, participation, and restitution.[xxv] It also formalized the use of victim impact statements in sentencing and established a flexible approach to the content and presentation of these statements, including non-traditional expressive forms like poetry or art.[xxvi] Furthermore, it introduced community impact statements as a new avenue for victims to express the broader consequences of crime.[xxvii] While the concept of “community” within these statements lacks a formal definition in the CVBR, the courts have interpretated it broadly under Section 722.2.[xxviii] Current case law primarily recognizes four categories of “community”: 1) a specific geographical area or neighbourhood, 2) a victims’ workplace, colleagues, or members of their profession, 3) a shared identity or group affiliation, and 4) proxies for individual victims who cannot be heard at sentencing.[xxix] This recognition has allowed for wider and more nuanced participation in the justice system and a recognition that the impact of crime can ripple out further than beyond a single individual.

Since, the CVBR’s introduction courts have since relied on it in decisions involving access to personal records, publication bans, and the accommodation of victims at sentencing, demonstrating its growing practical influence on the Canadian justice system. In 2022, the Manitoba Court of Appeal upheld the application of the CBVR to a judge’s analysis of harm done to a community when balancing factors in sentencing in the case R v Bunn.[xxx]

In terms of enforcement, however, the CVBR provides only limited remedies. The four main rights it protects, overlooks key considerations, such as minimizing inconvenience to victims and addressing the needs of diverse communities.[xxxi] Furthermore, the legislation limits victims’ ability to seek remedies for rights violations as it specifies that breaches of the CVBR do not create a new cause of action for victims.[xxxii] Despite the creation of the Office of the Ombudsman for Victims of Crime to provide a review process in cases of infringements by federal agencies, the CVBR places no obligation on the provinces, who are the administrators of criminal justice, to establish a complaint process, when breaches do arise.[xxxiii]Consequently, while the CVBR articulates important principles, its capacity to deliver consistent, enforceable protection remains constrained.

Structural Weaknesses

While significant progress has been made in recognizing and codifying victims' rights in Canada, much remains to be done to fully realize and consistently enforce these rights. Across both provincial and federal frameworks, several persistent gaps remain. Implementation varies significantly between jurisdictions; institutional responsibility for providing information is often unclear; remedies for rights violations are largely symbolic; and victims’ interests lack constitutional status. Together, these weaknesses mean that recognition has outpaced enforceability, leaving many victims dependent on discretionary compliance rather than legally robust entitlements.

Looking Forward: Targeted Harm as an Aggravating Factor

Future reform may lie in shifting some of the protective burden from victims to the sentencing process itself. One promising avenue is the explicit recognition of crimes targeting specific groups or communities as aggravating factors. At sentencing, this would operate through statutory direction requiring courts to treat proof that an offence was motivated by the victim’s role, vulnerability, or group membership as increasing an offender’s moral blameworthiness. Such an approach would acknowledge systemic patterns of harm towards victims, promote substantive equality, and ensure that the justice system responds not only to individual injury but also to collective vulnerability.

This framework sets the stage for the next posts in this series, which will examine how Canadian law conceptualizes targeted harm and how emerging legislation, particularly in relation to health care workers, reflects an evolving understanding of victim protection and sentencing equity.

Endnotes

[i] Joan Barrett, “Expanding Victims’ Rights in the Charter Era and Beyond”, (2008) 40:20 SCLR 628.

[ii] Ibid.

[iii] Ibid.

[iv] Ibid.

[v] Ibid at 630.

[vi] Ibid.

[vii] Ibid.

[viii] Ibid at 629.

[ix] Ibid.

[x] Ibid at 632.

[xi] Ibid.

[xii] Alan N. Young & Kanchan Dhanjal, “Victims’ Rights in Canada in the 21^st Century” (Ottawa: Department of Justice Canada, 2021) at 16.

[xiii] Ibid.

[xiv] Supra note 1 at 639.

[xv] Ibid.

[xvi] Ibid.

[xvii] Ibid.

[xviii] Ibid.

[xix] Supra note 12 at 17.

[xx] Ibid.

[xxi] Ibid.

[xxii] Ibid.

[xxiii] Government of Canada, “Victims’ Rights in Canada” (10 May 2024) online: <justice.gc.ca/eng/cj-jp/victims-victimes/rights-droits/victim.html

[xxiv] Ibid.

[xxv] Ibid.

[xxvi] Marie Manikis, “Impact Statements at Sentencing: Developments since the Victims Bill of Rights” (16 May 2022) <justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/cj-jp/victim/rd15-rr15/p4.html?wbdisable=true>

[xxvii] Ibid.

[xxviii] Supra note 26.

[xxix] Ibid.

[xxx] R v Bunn, 2022 MBCA 34 (CanLII).

[xxxi] Supra note 16 at 20.

[xxxii] Supra note 26.

[xxxiii] Supra note 16 at 20.