Victims' Rights and Compensation

Canadian justice through new government regulations on the administration of law and justice is attempting to re-balance the ledger respecting victims' rights. Victims' rights to compensation relating to the suffering and loss they have been forced to undergo as a result of criminal activities foisted upon them. The federal Conservative government enacted legislation that has become quite controversial; mandatory victim fine surcharges to be imposed in court post-trial.

That surcharge is meant to be automatic in nature and the surcharge is in the amount of $100. That fine for criminal activities is placed in a collective funding pot from which can be extracted amounts deemed to be reflective of the suffering that victims have had imposed upon them; to attempt to compensate them, however inadequately, for their travails.

There are some justices who have taken exception to the universality of the fines, to their implacably-demanding nature. Their imposition is mandatory. It is not up to the judgement of the presiding justice to determine whether, in his/her opinion that mandatory fine is justified. Justified primarily on the perceived ability to pay. In the instance of someone charged with a criminal offence who is on welfare for example, or penniless, or living on a tight income.

There are two cases that hit the news recently. One, that of a refugee from Sierra Leone, suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder. The man lives on a limited income through a disability pension. He had stolen seven chocolate bars from a Dollarama store, with a value of $9. The second man was a 27-year-old recovering drug addict, a part-time labourer who attempted to steal a cellphone from a Best Buy store.

Ottawa's Crown attorney's office is appealing the decisions of the judges in these cases who refused to impose the mandatory fine. Appeals were filed in Ottawa court, asking that the waivers be overturned and that the fines be paid within 30 days. Some justices, in sympathy with the accused, have given the convicted years to pay the fine, a fine that is meant to be paid within a very finite period.

Most of the justices are simply infuriated that the removal of judges' discretion has left them with no option when they seem to feel another is needed. It seems reasonable enough on the face of the situation, that judges be entrusted with discretion whether or not to impose the fine for victims' rights. Except that because so many decided to waive the fine where they felt it would pose an undue hardship, the mandatory aspect was brought to bear.

It was, in fact, complaints from victims' rights advocates that the surcharge was being waived too frequently, too freely, that brought the government's attention to the situation and persuaded it to include mandatory fines in the new Increasing Offenders Accountability for Victims Act.