The Federal Victim Surcharge in Saskatchewan

1. Introduction

This report presents the findings of a research study on the Federal Victim Surcharge (FVS) in Saskatchewan. The main research questions included:

  1. What are the waiver rates?
  2. What reasons are provided for the waiver(s)?
  3. How is the FVS documented in court files?
  4. What are the collection rates?
  5. What are the enforcement strategies in Saskatchewan and what, if any, are the consequences of non-compliance?
  6. What other options could be considered for collection?
  7. Why has the anticipated revenue to be generated from the 1999 amendments to the Criminal Code provisions related to the FVS not been realized?

In this first section, we explain the history of the Federal Victim Surcharge and provide an overview of the Criminal Code provisions, as well as describing victim services in Saskatchewan. In Section 2, the study methodology is described and in Section 3, the findings are presented. The final section presents the key learnings.

1.1 The Federal Victim Surcharge[1]

The Federal Victim Surcharge provisions of the Criminal Code were first enacted in 1988, proclaimed in July 1989, with amendments in 1999. The FVS is a payment imposed on an offender who is convicted of any Criminal Code offence, or a Controlled Drugs and Substances Act offence involving controlled or restricted drugs, as well as individuals who received an absolute or conditional discharge. The original Criminal Code provision set an upper limit on the amount of the surcharge, but the real limits were set in regulations. This approach was intended to permit the maximum amount to be raised over time. Importantly, the original intent of the surcharge was its inclusion as a part of the sentence and was not to be characterized as a “tax” or levy to simply raise revenue.

The original legislation required an offender to pay a surcharge of an amount not exceeding:

The regulations prescribed $35 as the “lesser amount” for non-fine offences. As a result of the combined effect of the regulations and the Code provisions, the surcharge was an amount up to 15% for fines and up to $35 for other dispositions, with judges maintaining discretion on whether or not to impose any surcharge. These regulations, which were not set out in the Code, led to a great deal of confusion and inconsistent practices surrounding the applicable amounts. In addition, the prescription of a maximum amount permitted judges to impose a lower surcharge and still comply with the legislation. In doing so, however, the goals of the surcharge, which included making offenders accountable to victims in a small way and to generate revenue for victim services, were not being met.

At the same time that the Federal Victim Surcharge was implemented in 1989, federal/provincial cost sharing programs for provincial victim crime compensation programs were eliminated. This was because the federal government anticipated that the FVS would provide additional funding per capita not only for crime compensation, but for other criminal justice victim services. These revenues were not realized as anticipated; a number of provinces eliminated or significantly revised crime compensation programs.

The provinces’ experience with the 1989 surcharge provisions quickly led to calls for reform. Within a few years after enactment, provinces and territories noted the need to revise the Criminal Code victim surcharge provision to address concerns regarding its implementation and revenue raising capacity.

Research conducted by Justice Canada consultants in the early 1990’s[2] revealed that in many cases the imposition of the surcharge was ignored or forgotten, particularly where the disposition was other than a fine. In situations where a jail term was imposed, judges often relied on the undue hardship provision to waive imposition. In addition, the imposition of the $35 surcharge where a term of imprisonment (or other non-fine disposition) was imposed was criticized as disproportionate to the gravity of the offence. Other reasons cited explaining the lack of acceptance of the surcharge included the perception that surcharge revenue would be deposited into general revenues with no guarantee that existing services for victims would be expanded or new services developed. At that time, the low revenue from the FVS was attributed to several factors including lack of awareness, concerns regarding the use of surcharge revenue and the restrictions on the maximum limits.

Despite the lower than anticipated revenues, provinces did not initially recommend increased amounts due to the fact that awareness and acceptance of the surcharge was improving and changes to the amounts could have impeded progress. No consensus on this issue was reached until December 1997, when Provincial and Territorial Ministers of Justice urged the federal Minister of Justice to proceed with revisions to the FVS scheme.

The Federal Provincial Territorial Working Group (FPTWG) on Victims of Crime proposed that s. 737 of the Code be amended to provide that:

In 1998, the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights tabled its report following its review of the victim’s role in the criminal justice system; Victims’ Rights - a Voice Not a Veto. The Committee noted the problems with the original surcharge provisions, including judges’ inadvertent failure to impose the surcharge and non-aggressive enforcement and collection initiatives by pertinent departments.

The report affirmed that additional resources were needed to provide adequate victim services across the country and that increasing the FVS would be a reasonable way to generate more revenue, particularly given that the maximum surcharge amounts had not increased since 1989.

The Government’s Response (December 1998) noted that the recommendations of the FPTWG and those of the FPT Attorneys General were consistent with those of the Committee. The Response included a commitment by the Minister of Justice to pursue Criminal Code amendments to revise the amount of the minimum surcharge and to provide for automatic imposition while preserving the undue hardship exemption and providing adequate notice to the accused. The Government’s Response also encouraged that a federal victim’s office be established that could work in collaboration with the provinces and territories, to among other things, explore effective enforcement mechanisms to ensure that funding would be available to the provinces and territories for their victims' services. The Policy Centre for Victim Issues (PCVI) was established in 2000 as a response to this recommendation. Criminal Code amendments to address the needs of victims of crime were proclaimed into force in 1999, including new surcharge provisions designed to address the concerns noted. These concerns and subsequent amendments focused on the amount of the minimum surcharge and the possibility to provide for automatic imposition while preserving the undue hardship exemption. Saskatchewan has not seen an increase in FVS revenues since the 1999 amendments.

The only exception to the mandatory imposition of the FVS occurs when the offender can prove “undue hardship” (Criminal Code s.737(5)). The surcharge may be waived if the offender establishes undue hardship to either her/himself or her/his dependants as a result of the imposition of the FVS. When the court waives a Federal Victim Surcharge, it is required to provide reasons and state them in the record of proceedings (s.737(6)).

There is a Fine Option Program, which is an opportunity for the offender to satisfy fines by means of community work through a formula calculating the number of hours the offender works; the Criminal Code, however, explicitly states that the Fines Option Program cannot be used to satisfy a surcharge (s.736 and s.737(10)). Furthermore, section 734.8(5) of the Criminal Code clarifies that where a part payment is made for a fine, the money is applied first to the costs (s.734(5)(a)(i)) second to the surcharge and then to the fine (Section 737).

The court may order an offender to pay a FVS in an amount exceeding that set out in subsection (2) if the court considers it appropriate in the circumstances and is satisfied that the offender is able to pay the higher amount. The court may also may order the offender to pay a surcharge an amount less than that set out in section (2) if the court is satisfied that paying the full amount would cause the offender undue hardship but the offender has the means to pay a lesser amount.

1.2 The Provincial Victim Surcharge and Victim Services in Saskatchewan

In Saskatchewan, the Victims of Crime Act, 1995, forms the legislative basis for the Victims Services Program and was proclaimed on August 1, 1999. A victim is defined in the Act as a person who, by reason of an act that is in violation of criminal laws, has suffered harm, including physical or mental injury, emotional suffering or economic loss.

The Act provides for the collection of a surcharge (s.10) on provincial offences and creates a dedicated fund to support programs and services for victims. Offenders must pay the surcharge over and above any other punishment imposed on them for all provincial offences and municipal by-laws, other than those prosecuted by by-law tickets and parking offences. The imposition of the provincial surcharge is automatic and payment is mandatory. Surcharges are collected by the courts in the same manner as fines. Any payment made by the person convicted of the offence is first applied to payment of the surcharge and then to payment of the fine. Revenue collected from the provincial surcharge and the FVS flows to the “Victims’ Fund”. Surcharges are the primary source of income for the Victims Services Program, which includes compensation for victims of crime.

On July 1, 2008, amendments to the provincial surcharge provisions in the Act came into effect. Where the fine imposed is $500 or less, the provincial surcharge has been increased by $10. Where the fine imposed is greater than $500, the surcharge has been increased by 10 per cent. For example, the provincial surcharge would be:

This change reflects an increase of $10 per category. In the case of fines greater than $500, it is an increase from 30% to 40%.

Canada Revenue Agency Refund Set-Off Program

The Saskatchewan Ministry of Justice and Attorney General has partnered with the Canada Revenue Agency in the Refund Set-Off Program which allows the Province to report information to CRA regarding offenders with unpaid fines that are payable to the Province of Saskatchewan.

If that individual is entitled to an Income Tax Refund or a GST Credit, CRA may withhold payment and forward the funds to the Province to be applied to the unpaid fine(s).

Only particular cases would fall under the criteria established for the Refund Set-Off Program. Several of those criteria are not relevant to this particular study on the FVS and as such, listed below are the criteria that are relevant to this work:

  1. Only individuals (no companies) are to be included.
  2. The fine must be payable to the Attorney General and the associated surcharge will be included.
  3. If the fine is not payable to the Attorney General, any associated surcharge will not be included.
  4. If a stand alone Federal Victim Surcharge exists, then the Federal Victim Surcharge will be sent to CRA if it is greater than $19.99.
  5. No active Warrant for Committal for Non-Payment of Fines (WOC) can exist. Status must be cancelled or recalled.
  6. The outstanding debt must be greater than $19.99

This program only began in 2008 and as such, there was no data available for analysis in this particular study. This description is included, however, as it is currently part of the Saskatchewan Ministry and Attorney General’s efforts to improve collection of the Federal Victim Surcharge and other monetary penalties.

Criminal Code provisions

737. (1) Subject to subsection (5), an offender who is convicted or discharged under section 730 of an offence under this Act or the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act shall pay a victim surcharge, in addition to any other punishment imposed on the offender.

(2) Subject to subsection (3), the amount of the victim surcharge in respect of an offence is (a) 15 per cent of any fine that is imposed on the offender for the offence; or (b) if no fine is imposed on the offender for the offence,

(i) $50 in the case of an offence punishable by summary conviction, and

(ii) $100 in the case of an offence punishable by indictment.

(3) The court may order an offender to pay a victim surcharge in an amount exceeding that set out in subsection (2) if the court considers it appropriate in the circumstances and is satisfied that the offender is able to pay the higher amount.

(4) The victim surcharge imposed in respect of an offence is payable at the time at which the fine imposed for the offence is payable and, when no fine is imposed, within the time established by the lieutenant governor in council of the province in which the surcharge is imposed for payment of any such surcharge.

(5) When the offender establishes to the satisfaction of the court that undue hardship to the offender or the dependants of the offender would result from payment of the victim surcharge, the court may, on application of the offender,

make an order exempting the offender from the application of subsection (1).

(6) When the court makes an order under subsection (5), the court shall state its reasons in the record of the proceedings.

(7) A victim surcharge imposed under subsection (1) shall be applied for the purposes of providing such assistance to victims of offences as the lieutenant governor in council of the province in which the surcharge is imposed may direct from time to time.

(8) The court shall cause to be given to the offender a written notice setting out

(a) the amount of the victim surcharge;

(b) the manner in which the victim surcharge is to be paid;

(c) the time by which the victim surcharge must be paid; and

(d) the procedure for applying for a change in any terms referred to in paragraphs (b) and (c) in accordance with section 734.

(9) Subsections 734(3) to (7) and sections 734.3, 734.5, 734.7 and 734.8 apply, with any modifications that the circumstances require, in respect of a victim surcharge imposed under subsection (1) and, in particular,

(a) a reference in any of those provisions to “fine”, other than in subsection 734.8(5), must be read as if it were a reference to “victim surcharge”; and

(b) the notice provided under subsection (8) is deemed to be an order made under section 734.1.

(10) For greater certainty, the program referred to in section 736 for the discharge of a fine may not be used in respect of a victim surcharge.

R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 737; 1995, c. 22, ss. 6, 18; 1996, c. 19, s. 75; 1999, c. 5, s. 38, c. 25, s. 20(Preamble).

1.3 Other Research

The Department of Justice has carried out several studies on the Federal Victim Surcharge since it was first introduced in the late 1980s. Two studies were undertaken to review the impact of the new provisions, one in British Columbia and one in Ontario. The first was entitled, An Assessment of Victim Fine Surcharge in British Columbia, by Tim Roberts (1992). There were two types of analysis conducted in this study: i) an implementation analysis, which examined the degree to which and the geographical consistency with which the victim surcharge provisions were implemented in BC and the procedures involved in the process; and ii), an analysis of issues which have arisen in regard to particular types of cases and in regard to the implementation of victim surcharges.

Two primary methods were used: a survey of key justice system informants in 4 major locations, and to a lesser degree in 21 other sites; and, a file review of the use of victim surcharges in 1,195 completed cases with convictions.

Three themes emerged from the study findings:

  1. There is considerable variability in the frequency of the imposition of the surcharge in BC.
  2. There is resistance by judges to the imposition of the victim surcharge.
  3. There is a lack of implementation of surcharges on non-fine dispositions.

The second study was entitled, Helping Victims through Fine Surcharges, by Lee Axon and Bob Hann (1994). This study examined Ontario’s experience with the surcharge and also reviewed practices in other jurisdictions. Findings from this study included:

  1. In Ontario, the revenue generated by the surcharge declined dramatically since the initial introduction in 1989 because it was being applied with less frequency.
  2. Only about 15% of the potential surcharge was imposed in 1992 and only 2.7% was actually collected.
  3. More than 80% of all surcharges were imposed on “victimless” crimes (impaired driving, morals offences, and willful damage).
  4. The major reason for the low rates of imposition of the surcharge in Ontario was judicial concern that the revenue would not be used to provide services for crime victims. Revenue was being deposited in the province’s Consolidated Revenue Fund. Three quarters of the judges responded that if the revenue were directed towards victim services, they would be more likely to impose the surcharge. Crown expressed similar views. Defence were almost unanimously opposed to the surcharge.
  5. The study found that, in other jurisdictions: there is widespread dissatisfaction with the regulated $35 maximum for non-fine dispositions; little attention has been given to informing offenders about the purpose of the surcharge; judges are more likely to impose the surcharge on fines than on non-fine dispositions; the surcharge has been most successful in those jurisdictions that have kept judges informed about how the revenue is being used; and most jurisdictions have developed a designated fund for the revenue.

No research was conducted in the years immediately following the 1999 amendments; in 2004, however, the Department completed a large multi-site study on the victim-related Criminal Code provisions (Prairie Research Associates 2004). A wide range of stakeholders were interviewed across the country and questions on the FVS were included. When judges were asked whether they generally apply the FVS, 58% of judges reported that they generally apply the surcharge, 37% do not. Reasons given by the judges for not applying the surcharge included:

There was no additional probing to discover as to why a small percentage of judges believe that the FVS is inappropriate. It appears, however, that in the majority of cases, the offender is said to not have the ability to pay. More than half (54%) of Crown Attorneys interviewed noted that there was frequently no application to challenge because the judge had waived the surcharge on his/her own.

The study also asked a number of stakeholder groups for their views whether the FVS is waived more often than it should be. As can be seen in Table 1, the majority of victim services workers and Crown Attorneys believe that the FVS is waived more often than it should be, while most defence counsel do not.

Table 1: Responses by stakeholder group as to whether the FVS is waived more often than it should be
  Victim Services (n=62) Crown Attorneys (n=161) Defence Counsel (n=170) Advocacy Groups (n=15)
Yes 66% 70% 11% 47%
No 34% 30% 89% 53%

Source: Multi-site Study, PRA 2004

More recently, Law and Sullivan (2008) undertook a review of the FVS in New Brunswick. Examining 61,174 cases from the province’s justice data management system, the authors found an average provincial waiver rate of 66%. In cases of fine dispositions, the waiver rate was 25% and for non-fine dispositions the waiver rates were 84% for summary convictions and 91% for indictable convictions. In cases of custodial dispositions, the waiver rate was 96%.

The waiver rates (both highest and lowest) were as follows:

  1. non-violent property offences (73%)
  2. drug convictions (62%)
  3. driving under influence (DUI) (26%).

The average provincial collection rate was 83%. For custodial dispositions, that rate was 53% and for fines, the rate was 85%.

In addition, the study found that all court locations had a system to ensure the FVS was being automatically applied, unless actively waived by the judge. There were consistent documentation practices within court locations. There was considerable variation, however, in the documentation practices between different Provincial Court locations. There was no documentation to indicate that evidence had been produced to prove “undue hardship” to the courts’ satisfaction, nor were reasons for the waiver documented in court files (in 99% of cases).

Similar research was conducted in the Northwest Territories (Ha 2009). On average, the territorial waiver rate was 70%. In cases of custodial dispositions, the waiver rate was 94% and for fine dispositions, the rate was 30%. For offences against the person, the waiver rate was 77% and in cases of driving under influence, the waiver rate was 40%.

The territorial average collection rate was 84%. In cases of custodial dispositions, the collection rate was 73% and in cases of fines, the rate was 84%. Interviews with stakeholders in the criminal justice system were also conducted and overall, there was a positive view of the concept of the surcharge. There was a perception that there is little information about the surcharge and how money is used. There was also a perception that the focus for policy makers and court staff should be on enforcing existing surcharge provisions, not increasing surcharge amount. A majority of informants believed the surcharge is not being imposed automatically. Overall, the informants noted that expected revenues have not materialized due to:

The research that has been undertaken to date shows similar results in that average waiver rates are high in the jurisdictions and higher for custodial dispositions than for fines. Collection rates are relatively good (83% in New Brunswick and 84% in the Northwest Territories), demonstrating that the low revenues are not due to low collection rates, rather high waiver rates.

1.4 Caselaw

An exploration of the reported caselaw across the country suggests that revenue from the Federal Victim Surcharge is lower than expected because surcharges are being waived at sentencing. As noted earlier, s. 737(5) of the Criminal Code provides that the offender may apply to have the FVS waived if he establishes that its imposition would result in “undue hardship” to himself or his dependants. Furthermore, s. 737(6) requires the court to provide reasons if a waiver is granted. Using QuickLaw,[3] the terms “victim surcharge” and “waiv*” were entered. This search yielded 56 cases that were subsequently reviewed to canvas the reasons provided when the FVS was waived.

Despite the requirement that reasons be provided when the surcharge is waived, the search returned roughly equal numbers of cases where reasons were and were not provided for a waiver. The cases where the FVS was waived without explanation do provide some insight on this issue. Notably, the cases where reasons were not provided included two judgments by the same judge where the offenders were sentenced to pay a fine, yet the victim surcharge was waived.[4] Both cases involve offenders sentenced to a term of imprisonment and a fine for drug-related crimes, and neither included any discussion of the offender’s financial circumstances or ability to pay a victim surcharge. While it is possible that this information was provided to the court by the offenders’ lawyers but not included in the judgment, it is curious that an offender who would be capable of paying a fine would not also be capable of paying the victim surcharge. These cases could be examples of the FVS being waived because of judicial oversight.

Also noteworthy is an Ontario case where, upon being asked by the defendant’s counsel to waive the FVS for financial reasons, the judge replied that he had not imposed a surcharge. When defendant’s counsel explained that the surcharge was imposed automatically, the judge expressly waived it without making any inquiries about the defendant’s financial circumstances and not stating any reasons to support the waiver.[5] In this case, the judge was both unaware of the FVS and willing to waive it without evidence of the defendant’s inability to pay, as required in order for the waiver to be granted.

In many cases it was not possible to determine whether the FVS was waived upon application by defence counsel, as required, or whether it was the court’s own decision. In a number of cases including both those where reasons were and were not provided for the waiver, the judge only ruled on this matter after being reminded by the court clerk.

By contrast, the judgment in R. v. Cornohus[6] included an exchange between the judge and defence counsel in which defence counsel neither applied for a waiver of the victim surcharge, nor presented any information concerning his client’s financial circumstances. However, the judge waived the surcharge without explanation. In R. v. C.J.L,[7] the victim surcharge was waived for the offender, who, despite a prior record and drug problem, was gainfully employed. The sentencing decision contained no application for a waiver by the offender’s counsel or any inquiry by the judge as to the offender’s ability to pay. The waiver was granted without reason by the judge after the court clerk specifically asked the judge whether a victim surcharge was to be imposed.

The cases where reasons were provided for the waiver of the surcharge included many where it was assumed that the offender would not be capable of making payments because the offender was sentenced to a period of incarceration. In R. v. Barembruch[8] where the offender was sentenced to five years and four months imprisonment, the judge stated, “I will waive the victim surcharge because it is apparent that the accused will not be in possession of money since he will be incarcerated.” In R. v. Noiles[9], where the offender was sentenced to eight years for break and enter with intent and sexual assault, the judge stated, “I am also prepared to waive the victim surcharge of $100 in view of the length of the sentence imposed.” Neither judgment contains any details on the “undue hardship” that would be caused to the offenders or their families by the imposition of the surcharge. In R. v. Matthiesson,[10] defence sought a waiver of the victim surcharge “in view of the circumstances” when his client received a sentence of seven and a half years for drug offences. The waiver was granted by the judge “having regard to the sentence imposed” despite the fact that the offender had been successfully employed as a realtor since his arrest four months earlier. No evidence of the “undue hardship” which would be caused to the offender or his family was provided by the offender’s counsel nor was any requested by the judge.

In contrast to these judgments is that of R. v. S.M.[11] where the judge declined the offender’s application to waive the FVS in sentencing the offender to 18 months imprisonment to be served consecutively to the time he was serving for break and enter and theft. In refusing to waive the surcharge the judge stated:

…most of the circumstances as related by [offender’s counsel] are common, I think to at least fifty, if not seventy-five percent of the people who appear before me and if I make an Order that waives the surcharge on these conditions, I am essentially saying that it should be waived more often than not, and I am certain that that’s not what was intended by the statute…That is to say, I am certain that the test was intended to be a little higher than would have resulted in average automatic waiver.

The case law reviewed shows that many sentencing judges do not share this view of the FVS, and are prepared to waive the surcharge for reasons which appear to fall below the standard set out in s. 737(5) of the Criminal Code.

In the case law reviewed, it would appear that the FVS was waived because:

The authors also examined a few recent cases from Saskatchewan on the Federal Victim Surcharge in order to determine outcomes at the appellate level[12].

In R. v. Rusanov,[13] a 2006 Saskatchewan Court of Queen’s Bench decision, the accused was found guilty of drug offences. The Crown requested a restitution order of $13,392 (the value of the electricity stolen) payable to SaskPower. Because the accused was not solely responsible for the theft, the judge made an order pursuant to s. 738 for $6,700. Of note in this case, at para. 40, Chicoine, J. states that, “The victim surcharge provided for under s.737 of the Criminal Code is waived for reason of undue hardship on Mr. Rusanov’s dependants.” Yet inability to pay was not raised as an issue for the order.

There were three cases where Crown prosecutors sought an appeal of the trial judge’s decision regarding waiver of the Federal Victim Surcharge. In a 2008 Court of Queen’s Bench oral decision, Allbright, J. noted,[14]

I direct that the sentence is to be varied to have the additional portion of it, pursuant to s.737 CC, Ms. Parsons shall pay a victim surcharge in respect of the offence in question, in the amount of $50.00. Ms. Parsons has until August 31, 2008 to pay the victim impact surcharge.

In another Court of Queen’s Bench decision in 2008, R. v. Poitras,[15] the accused consented to the appeal that the trial judge erred in law by failing to impose the FVS and a FVS in the amount of $50 was imposed with three months to pay.

In the third case, R.v. Yaremko,[16] Pritchard J. noted in paragraphs 1-4 of the decision:

As he concluded the sentencing, and without any discussion or explanation, the sentencing judge waived the victim surcharge. The surcharge was waived notwithstanding that the Respondent had not requested an exemption pursuant to s. 737(5) of the Criminal Code (the “Code”).

… The appeal is made on the basis that the trial judge did not comply with the mandatory provisions of s.737 of the Code.

The imposition of a victim fine surcharge under s.737 of the Code is mandatory subject only to an application under s.737(5) relating to undue hardship. (See R. v. Jimmy (B.C.S.C.), [1994] B.C.J. No.727 and R.v. Tellier, 2000 ABCA 219, [2000] A.J. No.903). If an offender is exempted from payment of the victim surcharge, it is also mandatory that the court give reasons.

The sentencing judge failed to comply with the explicit provisions of s.737(1) of the Code or, alternatively the explicit provisions of ss.737(5) and (6) of the Code. . . . The record establishes that the Respondent was employed at the time of sentencing and has been consistently employed his entire adult life. Although the Respondent has financial challenges, there is no evidence that they amount to undue hardship particularly given that the maximum victim surcharge payable in these circumstances is only $30.00. This represents 15 per cent of the fine assessed by the sentencing judge. As stated by the Crown, the funds raised through victim surcharges play an important and vital part in the criminal justice system and it is important that sentencing judges pay serious attention to their obligations under s.737 of the Code. All amounts paid by way of victim surcharges are used in accordance with s. 21 of the Victims of Crime Act, 1995, S.S. 1995, c.V-6.011.

This case and the two preceding are examples of where, in the past year or so, Crown prosecutors have been diligent in following up on cases where waivers may not have been justified or no reasons were given. It is important to note that in this decision, the Court stressed the role of the FVS in the provision of services for victims of crime.

[1] This background is largely drawn from M. Law and M. Sullivan. 2008. The Federal Victim Surcharge in New Brunswick: An Operational Review. Department of Justice Canada: Ottawa.

[2] See Section 1.3 for more detail on these studies.

[3] Only cases up to the end of 2004 were examined through QuickLaw.

[4] R. v. Garceau, [1994] Y.J. No. 102 (Y.S.C.) and R. v. Tyacke [1994] Y.J. No. 55 (Y.S.C.)

[5] R. v. C.D., [2001] O.J. No. 3309 (Ont. Sup. Ct. J.)

[6] [1995] Y.J. No. 182 (Y.S.C.)

[7] [2003] B.C.J. No. 3019 (B.C. Prov. Ct.)

[8] [2002] B.C.J. No. 3182

[9] [2002] N.S.J. No. 212 (N.S.S.C.)

[10] [1996] A.J. No. 1419 (Alta. Q.B.)

[11] [2000] O.J. No. 5683 (Ont. C.J.)

[12] The review of the Saskatchewan cases is not comprehensive.

[13] (2006), 287 Sask. R. 311 (Sask. Q.B.)

[14] QBCA 10/08 R. v. Parsons

[15] QBCA 7/08 Information No. 33382309

[16] 2007 SKQB 225.