What do Canadians Know about the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights?

By Fatima Fayyaz and Nadine Badets

Introduction

The Canadian Victims Bill of Rights (CVBR) became law in 2015.Footnote55 It recognizes the rights of victims at a federal level. It also requires consideration of victims’ rights during each step of the criminal justice system (CJS) process. These rights include:Footnote56

  1. The right to protection, which includes security and privacy;
  2. The right to information, about the CJS, the status and outcome of one’s case, and services available to victims, including restorative justice programs;
  3. The right to seek restitution, which requires the offender to pay the victim for financial losses the victim suffered because of the offender’s crime; and
  4. The right to participate, to ensure the victim’s views are considered (for example, by presenting a victim impact statement at sentencing).

The National Justice Survey 2022

The National Justice Survey (NJS) is an annual public opinion survey led by Justice Canada. Justice Canada uses the results from this survey to inform the development of its policies and programs. In 2022, the NJS surveyed Canadian citizens and others living in Canada about what they knew, what they thought, and what they experienced about different aspects of Canada’s justice system.

The NJS collected its findings from a random sample of 4,949 people aged 18 years and older. The survey was about 18 minutes long. Respondents were selected from a pre-profiled database, which originally recruited respondents through random-digit dialling. For the 2022 NJS, respondents were recruited by telephone, email, or SMS invitation. It collected information on age, gender, region, income, employment status, education, place of birth (in Canada or outside of Canada), and ethno-cultural identity. Indigenous participants in this survey self-identified as First Nations, Inuk (Inuit), Métis, or with multiple Indigenous groups. The survey results were weighted to represent the Canadian population as a whole.

This article presents key findings from the 2022 NJS, such as how aware Canadians are of the CVBR. It also presents what Canadians think about victims and witnesses using support animals as testimonial aids and virtual testimony.

Results

How aware are Canadians of the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights?

The 2022 NJS asked respondents to describe how aware they were of the CVBR before taking the survey. It measured responses on a five-point scale: from one (1) meaning “not aware at all” to five (5) meaning “very aware.” Respondents who selected four or five on the five-point scale are considered “aware.” Overall, less than one-fifth (17 percent) reported that they were aware of the CVBR before taking this survey. Indigenous peoples were more likely to report being aware of the CVBR (21 percent) than White people (17 percent).

Adults aged 45 to 54 (19 percent) and 55 to 64 (18 percent) were more likely to report that they were aware of the CVBR than younger adults aged 25 to 34 (13 percent).

The NJS questions also asked respondents how important they think it is for people in Canada to know about the CVBR, on a five-point scale: from one (1) meaning “not important at all” to five (5) meaning “very important.” Most people reported that they believe it is important (four or five on the five-point scale) to know about the CVBR (81 percent). Age and gender affected these results. Older adults, aged 65 years or older (85 percent), were more likely to say that it is important to know about the CVBR than younger people aged 25 to 34 (74 percent). Women (85 percent) were more likely to report that knowing about the CVBR is important than men (76 percent).

Respondents with incomplete high school education were more likely to agree that it is important to know about the CVBR (90 percent) than those with:

  • a registered apprenticeship or other trades certificate (75 percent);
  • incomplete post-secondary education (80 percent);
  • a bachelor’s degree (79 percent); and
  • a postgraduate degree (78 percent).

Results also varied by Indigenous and ethno-cultural identity. First Nations people and MétisFootnote57 (86 percent each) were more likely to respond that it is important to know about the CVBR than White people were (80 percent). Black peopleFootnote58 (91 percent) were also more likely to indicate that it is important to know about the CVBR than White people (80 percent). Southeast Asian peopleFootnote59 (90 percent) were more likely to report that knowing about the CVBR is important compared with East AsianFootnote60 (76 percent), White (80 percent), and South AsianFootnote61 (83 percent) people.

Support animals as testimonial aids

Canada has not passed a law on the use of support animals in the criminal justice system. Service dogs, however, have legal status and their useFootnote62 has become legal in each province and territory (McDonald and Rooney 2014; McDonald and Poulin 2022). The Criminal Code doesprovide support for people testifying in a criminal trialFootnote63 but only for a support person for a child witness (emphasis added, Ibid.).

Little research has been conducted on the use of support animals in courts. However, the existing research shows that support animals have many benefits for vulnerable people, including that the animals are able to comfort and calm them (McDonald and Rooney 2014; McDonald and Poulin 2022).Footnote64 The 2022 NJS had four questionsFootnote65 for respondents’ opinions on the use of support animals as testimonial aids in courtrooms. The results show that overall there is a significant amount of support in Canada for the use of support animals as testimonial aids for victims and witnesses. Opinions differ by gender, age, ethno-cultural identity, labour force status, and level of education (Figure 1).

Figure 1: Percentage of people who agreed with the following statements on the use of a support animal as a testimonial aid by victims and witnesses in a courtroom, Canada, 2022
Figure 1: Percentage of people who agreed with the following statements on the use of a support animal as a testimonial aid by victims and witnesses in a courtroom, Canada, 2022

Source: Justice Canada, National Justice Survey, 2022.

Figure 1: Percentage of people who agreed with the following statements on the use of a support animal as a testimonial aid by victims and witnesses in a courtroom, Canada, 2022 – Text version

This is a horizontal bar graph with four categories, each representing a statement about the use of support animals as testimonial aids by victims and witnesses in a courtroom.

The first statement says: makes it easier to provide a “full and candid” account of what happened. The bar indicates that 71 percent of respondents agreed with this statement.

The second statement says: decreases my confidence in the criminal justice system. The bar indicates that 15 percent of respondents agreed with this statement.

The third statement says: ensures the participation of victims and witnesses in the criminal justice system. The bar indicates that 73 percent of respondents agreed with this statement.

The fourth statement says: negatively impacts the right of the accused to a fair and public hearing. The bar indicates that 15 percent of respondents agreed with this statement.

About seven in ten (71 percent) respondents agreed that support animals are an important aid to help victims and witnesses provide a “full and candid” account of what happened (Figure 1). About the same proportion (73 percent) agreed that support animals are an important tool for the courts to support victims and witnesses participating in the CJS. People were less likely to agree that using support animals decreases their confidence in the CJS (15 percent), and that it harms the right of the accused to a fair and public hearing (15 percent).

Differences in opinion were observed by gender.Footnote66 Men were less likely than women to support the use of support animals as testimonial aids for victims and witnesses. Eight in ten women (80 percent) supported the idea that allowing a victim or witness to use a support animal would help them provide a “full and candid” account of what happened, whereas 62 percent of men agreed with this statement (Figure 2).

Women (79 percent) were also more likely than men (64 percent) to indicate that allowing a victim or witness to testify using a support animal does not decrease their confidence in the CJS. Men (18 percent) were more likely than women (13 percent) to report that they think the use of a support animal for victims and witnesses harms the accused person’s right to a fair and public hearing.

Figure 2: Percentage of people by gender who agreed with the following statements on the use of a support animal as a testimonial aid by victims and witnesses in a courtroom, Canada, 2022
Figure 2: Percentage of people by gender who agreed with the following statements on the use of a support animal as a testimonial aid by victims and witnesses in a courtroom, Canada, 2022

Note: * indicates a statistically significant difference from men at the 95 percent level.

Source: Justice Canada, National Justice Survey, 2022.

Figure 2: Percentage of people by gender who agreed with the following statements on the use of a support animal as a testimonial aid by victims and witnesses in a courtroom, Canada, 2022 – Text version

This is a vertical bar graph with three categories, each representing a statement about the use of support animals as testimonial aids by victims and witnesses in a courtroom, and divided by men and women.

The first statement says: allowing a victim or witness to testify with the assistance of a support animal, where one is available, makes it easier to provide a “full and candid” account of what happened. The first bar indicates that 62 percent of men agreed with this statement, and the second bar indicates that 80 percent of women agreed with this statement. The percentage of women who agreed with the statement is statistically different from the percentage of men at the 95 percent level.

The second statement says: allowing a victim or witness to testify with the assistance of a support animal, where one is available, does not decrease my confidence in the criminal justice system. The first bar indicates that 64 percent of men agreed with this statement, and the second bar indicates that 79 percent of women agreed with this statement. The percentage of women who agreed with the statement is statistically different from the percentage of men at the 95 percent level.

The third statement says: allowing a victim or witness to testify with the assistance of a support animal, where one is available, negatively impacts the right of the accused to a fair and public hearing. The first bar indicates that 18 percent of men agreed with this statement, and the second bar indicates that 13 percent of women agreed with this statement. The percentage of women who agreed with the statement is statistically different from the percentage of men at the 95 percent level.

Differences in opinions on the use of support animals were observed by ethno-cultural group and by place of birth (inside and outside of Canada). This could be because different religions and cultures have different attitudes towards animals, in particular dogs.

White people (74 percent) were more likely than members of racialized groups (65 percent) to agree that using a support animal helps victims and witnesses to provide a “full and candid” account,Footnote67 with the exception of LatinxFootnote68 people (75 percent). Also, people who were born in Canada (73 percent) were more likely than those born outside Canada (65 percent) to express support for the use of support animals as testimonial aids.

White people (76 percent) were more likely than members of racialized groups (61 percent)Footnote69 to report that using a support animal would not decrease their confidence in the CJS. Latinx (79 percent) and White (76 percent) people were also more likely to agree that allowing a victim or witness to use a support animal helps victims and witnesses participate in the justice system than Middle Eastern and North AfricanFootnote70 (61 percent), South Asian (63 percent), Black (65 percent), and East Asian (65 percent) people.

White people (71 percent) were more likely than members of racialized groups (54 percent) to report that they do not think the use of support animals as testimonial aids infringe on the accused person’s right to a fair and public hearing. However, racialized and ethno-cultural groups had different opinions. Latinx people (62 percent) were more likely than Southeast Asian (46 percent), East Asian (51 percent), and Middle Eastern and North African (51 percent) people to think that the accused’s right to a fair and public trial would not be affected if a victim or witness had a support animal with them while testifying in court.

A higher proportion of people born in Canada (70 percent) than people born outside Canada (55 percent) reported that using a support animal does not negatively affect the accused’s rights.

Students attending school full-time (86 percent) were more likely to agree that the use of support animals in the courts helps victims and witnesses to participate in the CJS than people who are unemployed (68 percent), working full-time (30 hours or more a week) (70 percent) or part-time (less than 30 hours a week) (76 percent), and retirees (75 percent). Full-time students (84 percent) were also more likely to say that using support animals as testimonial aids for victims and witnesses will not negatively affect the accused in a trial.Footnote71

Young adults aged 18 to 24 years (82 percent) were more likely than older adults aged 25 to 44 (71 percent) to report that support animals are an important tool for supporting victim and witness participation in the CJS.

Finally, responses by annual household income showed large differences in opinion.Footnote72 People in the highest income group ($120,000 and more) (72 percent) were more likely than people in the lowest income group (less than $40,000) (62 percent) to disagree that the use of support animals by victims or witnesses harms the rights of the accused to a fair and public trial.

Virtual testimony by victims or witnesses

The role of technology in courts across Canada significantly increased in 2020 when people had to physically distance due to the COVID-19 pandemic (Justice Canada 2022). Videoconferencing became essential as it ensured that criminal courts could continue to process cases even though no one could gather in person. The 2022 NJS included four questionsFootnote73 to measure people in Canada’s opinions on the use of virtual testimony.

Six in ten people (62 percent) agreed with the statement that virtual testimony is an important tool the courts can use to improve access to justice, and a similar proportion (63 percent) agreed that allowing a victim or witness to testify virtually is an important tool for the courts to support their participation in the CJS (Figure 3). In contrast, almost a quarter (23 percent) of people reported that allowing a victim or witness to testify virtually, from outside the courthouse, decreases their confidence in the CJS, and 24 percent agreed that the use of virtual testimony by a victim or witness would negatively impact the right of the accused person to a fair and public hearing.

Most people in Canada appear to support the use of virtual testimony by victims and witnesses in the courts, but there were several differences in opinion observed by age group. For example, older adults expressed more support for virtual testimony than younger adults. Adults aged 65 years and older (18 percent) were less likely than younger adults aged 25 to 54 (25 percent) to report that the use of virtual testimony by victims and witnesses decreases their confidence in the CJS.

Similarly, younger adults aged 25 to 54 (26 percent) were more likely than older adults aged 65 and older (19 percent) to believe that allowing a victim or witness to testify virtually has a negative effect on the right of the accused person to a fair and public hearing.

Figure 3: Percentage of people who agreed with the following statements on the use of virtual testimony by victims and witnesses, Canada, 2022
Figure 3: Percentage of people who agreed with the following statements on the use of virtual testimony by victims and witnesses, Canada, 2022

Source: Justice Canada, National Justice Survey, 2022.

Figure 3: Percentage of people who agreed with the following statements on the use of virtual testimony by victims and witnesses, Canada, 2022 – Text version

This is a horizontal bar graph with four categories, each representing a statement about the use of virtual testimony by victims and witnesses.

The first statement says: important tool for the courts to improve access to justice. The bar indicates that 62 percent of respondents agreed with this statement.

The second statement says: decreases my confidence in the criminal justice system. The bar indicates that 23 percent of respondents agreed with this statement.

The third statement says: important tool for the courts to support victims and witnesses to participate in the criminal justice process. The bar indicates that 63 percent of respondents agreed with this statement.

The fourth statement says: negatively impacts the right of the accused to a fair and public hearing. The bar indicates that 24 percent of respondents agreed with this statement.

Gender also affected differences in opinion on virtual testimony. The survey results show that women were more likely than men to support the use of virtual testimony (Figure 4). Three in ten men (30 percent) said that victims and witnesses using virtual testimony would decrease their confidence in the CJS, while less than 20 percent of women expressed a similar opinion.

Figure 4: Percentage of people by gender who agreed with the following statements on the use of virtual testimony by victims and witnesses, Canada, 2022
Figure 4: Percentage of people by gender who agreed with the following statements on the use of virtual testimony by victims and witnesses, Canada, 2022

Note: * indicates a statistically significant difference from men at the 95 percent level.

Source: Justice Canada, National Justice Survey, 2022.

Figure 4: Percentage of people by gender who agreed with the following statements on the use of virtual testimony by victims and witnesses, Canada, 2022 – Text version

This is a vertical bar graph with three categories, each representing a statement about the use of virtual testimony by victims and witnesses, and divided by men and women.

The first statement says: allowing a victim or witness to testify virtually, from outside the courthouse, decrease my confidence in the criminal justice system. The first bar indicates that 30 percent of men agreed with this statement, and the second bar indicates that 16 percent of women agreed with this statement. The percentage of women who agreed with the statement is statistically different from the percentage of men at the 95 percent level.

The second statement says: allowing a victim or witness to testify virtually, from outside the courthouse, is an important tool to improve access to justice. The first bar indicates that 56 percent of men agreed with this statement, and the second bar indicates that 69 percent of women agreed with this statement. The percentage of women who agreed with the statement is statistically different from the percentage of men at the 95 percent level.

The third statement says: allowing a victim or witness to testify virtually, from outside the courthouse, negatively impacts the right of the accused to a fair and public hearing. The first bar indicates that 31 percent of men agreed with this statement, and the second bar indicates that 17 percent of women agreed with this statement. The percentage of women who agreed with the statement is statistically different from the percentage of men at the 95 percent level.

Women (69 percent) were also more likely than men (56 percent) to support the use of virtual testimony as a tool to improve access to justice for victims and witnesses of crime. Men (31 percent) were also more likely than women (17 percent) to say that they believe allowing victims and witnesses to testify virtually harms the accused person’s right to a fair and public trial.

Ethno-cultural groups showed some differences in opinion on virtual testimony. There could be a wide range of reasons for this. White people (64 percent) were more likely than East Asian (56 percent) and Middle Eastern and North African (54 percent) people to say that they believe that virtual testimony is an important tool to improve access to justice for victims and witnesses. Black people (62 percent) were more likely than East Asian people (51 percent) to say that virtual testimony is an important tool to support victim and witness participation in the CJS.

Middle Eastern and North African people (31 percent) were more likely to say that a victim or witness testifying virtually harms the right of the accused to a fair and public hearing than East Asian (19 percent), Latinx (22 percent), and White (23 percent) people, and those who identify as belonging to more than one ethno-cultural group (16 percent).

When the survey used level of education achieved to compare responses, those with a bachelor’s degree (68 percent) were more likely to see virtual testimony as a way to improve access to justice than those with registered apprenticeships or other trades certificates or diplomas (49 percent) and those with some post-secondary education (61 percent).

Perceptions of victims and survivors of crime

Three percent of the 2022 NJS respondents self-identified as victims or survivors of crime over the past two years.Footnote74 About 61 percent of victims and survivors reported that they believe it is very important for people in Canada to know about the CVBR. However, 42 percent said that before taking this survey, they had not been aware of the CVBR.

Most victims and survivors of crime (65 percent) strongly disagreed with the statement that the use of a support animal as a testimonial aid by victims and witnesses would decrease their confidence in the CJS. Nearly half (48 percent) of victims and survivors strongly disagreed that having victims and witnesses testify virtually (from outside the courtroom) would decrease their confidence in the justice system.

Victims and survivors of crime strongly disagreed when asked if victims and witnesses being allowed to use a support animal (59 percent) or virtual testimony (42 percent) negatively impacts the accused’s right to a fair and public trial.

Limitations

The responses of this survey are weighted to represent the Canadian population, but the sample has several limitations. Data from this survey only gathered responses from those with internet access and a phone (cell phone or landline). Response rates from Inuit were considerably lower than other communities, which may be due to many factors such as limited internet access in Inuit Nunangat, the Inuit homeland. Secondly, the survey was only collected in English and French, so it is possible that language barriers prevented some Inuit and other respondents from completing the survey.

Conclusion

The responses to the 2022 NJS show that Canadians’ opinions on the CVBR and the use of testimonial aids in the courts vary by gender, age, ethno-cultural identity, place of birth, level of education achieved, labour force status, and income.

Just over half of Canadians reported that they had not been aware of the CVBR before they took the survey, however, most Canadians believe it is important to know about the CVBR. Black and Indigenous people were more likely than White people to emphasize the importance of knowing about the CVBR. This may be due to Indigenous and Black people’s experiences and treatment as victims of crime in the Canadian CJS. More research is needed to present a better portrait of Indigenous and Black people’s experiences as victims of crime in the Canadian CJS, and how those experiences are informed by settler-colonialism, racism, and discrimination.

The survey results showed that there is a great deal of support in Canada for the use of support animals as testimonial aids and for the use of virtual testimony. Some differences in opinion were observed by socio-demographic characteristics. For example, White and Latinx people were more likely than other ethno-cultural and racialized groups to agree that if victims and witnesses use support animals as testimonial aids, it would help them to give a “full and candid” account of what happened and support them to participate in the CJS. Women and young adults were more likely than men and older adults to support the use of support animals in the courts. However, older adults aged 65 and older were more likely than younger adults to support the use of virtual testimony by victims and witnesses.

Respondents who self-identified as victims and survivors of crime strongly supported the use of support animals and virtual testimony by victims and witnesses. More research can help us to better understand the benefits and limitations of using support animals and virtual testimony in Canada’s criminal courts.

References

Justice Canada. 2022. State of the Criminal Justice System: Impact of COVID-19 on the Criminal Justice System. Accessed at: State of the Criminal Justice System Report

McDonald, Susan and Lara Rooney. 2014. Let’s "Paws" to Consider the Possibility: Using Support Dogs with Victims of Crime. Victims of Crime Research Digest, Issue No. 7, 17–25. Accessed at: https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/cj-jp/victim/rd7-rr7/p4.html

McDonald, Susan and Naythan Poulin. 2022. “Pawsitive” Directions: An Update on Dogs Supporting Victims of Crime. Victims of Crime Research Digest, Issue No. 15, 3–12. Accessed at: https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/cj-jp/victim/rd15-rr15/p1.html