The Federal Victim Surcharge - The 2013 Amendments and their Implementation in Nine Jurisdictions

4. Summary

The objective of this research was to develop a better understanding of the current status of collection and enforcement of the federal victim surcharge in cases where the offender is not compliant in making their payment, as well as identify challenges that are present in the current process.

There is marked variability across jurisdictions on the processes used for the collection and enforcement of unpaid federal victim surcharge. Almost half of the jurisdictions questioned use internal collection agencies (n=5), denial of motor vehicle license renewals (n=4), and CRA’s Federal Refund Set-off Program (n=4); fewer jurisdictions use external third party collection agencies (n=2) and default hearings with subsequent time served (n=2) as enforcement mechanisms. Only one province uses all four mechanisms involving collection agencies, denial of licence renewals, default hearings and the CRA Federal Refund Set-off Program. Three jurisdictions use only one strategy. Finally, there is one jurisdiction that does not use any special strategies for collecting unpaid federal victim surcharge; the unpaid surcharge simply “sits on the books”. Unfortunately, due to time constraints and dated justice information systems, there were not any data available that would illuminate how these enforcement techniques are related to local collection rates of the FVS.

Further, it was found that the Fine Option Program is available for federal victim surcharge satisfaction in four jurisdictions; however, how often this program is being used for that purpose was not available from any key informant. It was also noted that a time frame to satisfy the federal victim surcharge has been established by the Lieutenant Governor in Council in only three jurisdictions; however, every other jurisdiction establishes clear time frames for payment of the FVS at the time of individual sentencing.

Interviewees from the majority of jurisdictions (n=6) felt there has been minimal impact in terms of court services administration. It was also noted that there had been a consistent increase in funds available for Victim Services (n=8), while there were few comments on impact on the offenders’ ability to complete their sentences. There was a variety of concerns raised during the interviews, the most notable involving outdated justice information systems (n=3) and creative sentencing practices being employed by the bench (n=8) to work around the mandatory imposition of the surcharge.

What was particularly striking about the interview process in this project was how many personnel and departments/ministries had to be consulted to provide comprehensive answers to the ten questions posed in the interview protocol. There was not a single jurisdiction where one individual, through no fault of their own, was aware of the complete process in cases where the federal victim surcharge is not paid in a timely manner. That being said, this is not a case where the federal victim surcharge is slipping through the proverbial cracks of the collection/enforcement process. Each jurisdiction does have a clear plan for recovery of these funds; however, the knowledge of this process is very compartmentalized, with each department only aware of their piece of the collection/enforcement puzzle.

As the Department of Justice Canada moves forward in its efforts to understand how the federal victim surcharge regime has been evolving across the country since the 2013 amendments, most notable is the high degree of variation among jurisdictions to approaching the collection and enforcement issues around the federal victim surcharge.

5. References

Law, M. and Sullivan, S.M. 2006. The Federal Victim Surcharge in New Brunswick: An Operational Review. Ottawa:Department of Justice Canada.