Evaluation of the Contraventions Act Program

• Previous Page
• Table of Contents
• Next Page

4 Findings

This section of the report synthesizes the evaluation findings. The analysis is based on information that emerged from all lines of evidence. It begins with an assessment of the relevance of the Program, particularly as it relates to federal priorities on the administration of justice. It also explores the impact of the contraventions regime on enforcement authorities, provincial and municipal authorities, and Canadians more generally. This section ends with an analysis of the efficiency of the Program.

4.1 Relevance

4.1.1 Alignment with Federal Priorities

During the period covered by the evaluation, Justice pursued a number of initiatives that support the goal of “ensuring a fair, relevant and accessible Canadian justice system”.^{Footnote 2} In doing so, the Department has been addressing a number of longstanding issues that create inefficiencies and trigger unnecessary delays for those involved in the justice system. Of particular interest for the purpose of this report are the decisions from the Supreme Court of Canada in Jordan^{Footnote 3} (2016) and Cody^{Footnote 4} (2017) that established a new framework for proceeding with cases without undue delays, which has placed new pressures on the court system to modernize its approach and to ensure its resources are used purposely and diligently.

The contraventions regime directly supports these efforts. By more clearly distinguishing between criminal and statutory offences, and by establishing a process whereby the vast majority of federal offences designated as contraventions are prosecuted using a ticketing system, rather than the summary conviction process, the contraventions regime allows both enforcement authorities and those individuals (or corporations) alleged to have committed contraventions to address these matters fairly and efficiently.

As for Contraventions Act Fund, it directly reflects the commitment of Justice to ensure that “laws and policies abide by the rule of law and promote respect for rights and a fair, accessible and relevant legal framework in Canada”.^{Footnote 5} The Fund is a necessary component of the contraventions regime to ensure that all applicable language rights contained in the Criminal Code and the Official Languages Act are applied to any procedures related to federal contraventions, regardless of the provincial scheme being used.

While the Contraventions Act Fund is required for the long-term sustainability of the contraventions regime, it shows no meaningful alignment with the Action Plan for Official Languages 2018-2023. The Fund relates to official languages in that it guarantees that alleged offenders receive their ticket in both official languages, and obtain any applicable services covered by the linguistic provisions of the Criminal Code or Part IV of the Official Languages Act (communications with and services to the public) in both official languages.

Put simply, the Fund is entirely integrated in a regime used to enforce federal offences and is not aligned with the goals of the Action Plan to support the vitality of official language minority communities. Countless other similar service structures, communication tools and policies that allow Canadians to receive services in both official languages are not found within the Action Plan. Examples include passport renewal, income tax, employment insurance, and government website accessibility. Ultimately, the current arrangement associates the Fund with the federal government’s duty towards enhancement of official language minority communities, whereas the Fund is solely meant to fulfil the government’s legal duties towards language rights of those accused of contraventions.

The previous 2017 evaluation of the Contraventions Act Program recommended that the Department of Justice enter into discussions with Canadian Heritage to seek the removal of the Contraventions Act Fund from the Action Plan prior to its five-year renewal. Correspondence to this effect was sent to Canadian Heritage, however the matter was not addressed prior to the approval of the 2018-23 Action Plan. While the current evaluation findings indicate that the Fund is not well aligned with the Action Plan, it is unlikely that a similar recommendation will result in a different outcome in the near future as the Action Plan is currently midway through the five-year renewal cycle.

4.1.2 Range of Federal Offences Designated as Contraventions

Evaluation findings indicate that, in order for the contraventions regime to achieve its full potential, a number of key conditions must be met. The first of these is to ensure that a volume of federal offences designated as contraventions is adequate and sufficient to meet the needs of enforcement authorities.

Progress made since the last evaluation

The previous evaluation of the contraventions regime noted that “the evidence supports a significant expansion of the current scope, and indicates that a failure to do so considerably weakens the relevance of the Program”.^{Footnote 6} The report included a recommendation inviting Justice to collaborate with client departments to identify additional offences that could be designated as contraventions, and to provide the necessary support to facilitate that process.

Evaluation findings confirm that progress has been made in that regard. During the period covered by this evaluation, the Programs Branch’s Legal Services Division collaborated with a number of client departments to initiate the process of including new offences within the contraventions regime, through amendments made to the Contraventions Regulations.

A particularly relevant example of this work is the inclusion in the contraventions regime of a number of offences associated with the Quarantine Act, which has been a pivotal tool in managing the COVID-19 pandemic. The Legal Services Division has worked collaboratively with all key stakeholders to ensure that enforcement officers could use a ticketing system to enforce a number of offences under this legislation, such as failing to answer questions asked by screening officers, failing to disclose information concerning communicable diseases, or failing to comply with an order prohibiting the entry into Canada. These are informative examples where proceeding with a summary conviction process would prove highly inefficient. During interviews, enforcement officers emphasized the importance of having such offences covered under the Contraventions Act to ensure that immediate action can be taken to change the behaviour of those who fail to comply with these requirements.

Another example is the inclusion in the contraventions regime of some offences under the Aeronautics Act, and more precisely the Canadian Aviation Regulations, to address the use of laser or other directed bright light sources to interfere with the work of airplane pilots. This covers being in possession of certain hand-held lasers in specified areas or projecting a directed bright light source into a navigable airspace. In both cases, offenders face a fine of $1,000.

The need to pursue the expansion

Building on the progress made to date, evaluation findings confirm that increasing the number of offences covered by the contraventions regime is a priority for many enforcement authorities. The goal of the evaluation is not to compile a complete list of offences that should be included in the contraventions regime, as this process must inevitably involve negotiations among all concerned parties, including the departments responsible for these pieces of legislation or regulations, enforcement authorities, provincial or municipal officials, and Justice. To support this process, the evaluation has nonetheless provided an opportunity to gather information on what appears particularly relevant to add to the contraventions regime, from the perspective of enforcement authorities. The following paragraphs summarize the findings gathered in that regard.

Offences related to the Fisheries Act

The Fisheries Act and its associated regulations create an extensive framework that serves to manage many dimensions of commercial and recreational fishing activities in Canada. Among other things, the regulations tend to address specific regions of the country, based on the unique profile of fishing activities that occur in each of them. At the time of the evaluation, the range of offences included in the contraventions regime was associated with the Maritime Provinces Fishery Regulations and the Ontario Fishery Regulations.

During interviews, enforcement officers and managers expressed the desire to see a substantial expansion of fishery-related offences included in the contraventions regime.

• They suggested covering additional regions, particularly through the Atlantic Fishery Regulations, the Newfoundland and Labrador Fishery Regulations, the Quebec Fishery Regulations, and the British Columbia Sport Fishing Regulations.
• They also suggested the inclusion of some offences under the Metal and Diamond Mining Effluent Regulations and the Pulp and Paper Effluent Regulations.
• Finally, they noted that some offences contained in the Fisheries Act itself would benefit from being included in the contraventions regime, such as those related to the deposit of deleterious substance prohibited (section 36(3) of the Fisheries Act).

Enforcement officers and managers noted that having the regime operational in Newfoundland and Labrador has a substantial impact on its potential use to enforce fishery-related offences in the Atlantic region, and expect that the same trend would occur if additional regions were covered by the regime.

Offences related to the Canada National Parks Act

National parks are particularly well suited for the use of a ticketing system to lay charges. As individuals and families tend to stay in a park for a limited period of time, and may have travelled from afar to get there, having to proceed with a summary conviction process raises challenges for all parties involved. As noted in the previous evaluation of the Contraventions Act Program:

“From the citizens’ perspective, there is little doubt that the consequences of having to go through the summary conviction process, which was designed to deal with criminal offences, are often disproportionate considering the nature of the offence. For enforcement officers, the lengthy steps required by the summary conviction process also limit their ability to be “on the ground,” assuming their primary responsibility to enforce federal legislation."^{Footnote 7}

To this day, a number of offences under the regulations associated with the Canada’s national parks have been designated as contraventions. During interviews, enforcement officers and managers recommended that additional offences be covered, particularly those under the Gros Morne National Park of Canada Snowshoe Hare Regulations and the Gros Morne National Park of Canada Timber Harvesting Regulations, now that the regime is operational in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Other offences to be considered

Other areas mentioned during interviews include a further expansion of the range of offences included in the Canadian Environmental Protection Act and the Saguenay-St. Lawrence Marine Park Act, as well as the inclusion of offences under the Species at Risk Act.

In all cases, the goal is to ensure that officers have access to enforcement means that reflect the nature of the offences contained in the enabling legislation or regulations. As noted by an enforcement officer interviewed, the current set of offences designated as contraventions under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act concerns administrative requirements, such as failing to produce a report. That leaves a wide range of substantive offences that must be addressed through either the summary conviction process or the AMP regime when available. This arrangement is not meeting the needs of enforcement officers who would greatly benefit from being able to issue tickets under the contraventions regime.

A shared responsibility

Expanding the range of offences designated as contraventions is a lengthy process that involves a wide range of stakeholders, including predominantly the department or agency responsible for the legislation or regulations, several groups within Justice as well as central agencies, since any expansion requires regulatory amendments. Once new offences are added to the regime, provinces where the regime is operational must update their administrative systems and processes, and enforcement authorities must train officers so that they may take advantage of these modifications. This can only succeed through a concerted effort from all stakeholders.

In this context, the Programs Branch’s Legal Services Division can provide important support, but it cannot act unilaterally. Evaluation findings indicate the Division has made every effort to accommodate initiatives that aim to expand the range of offences contained in the contraventions regime.

4.2 Effectiveness

4.2.1 Achieving a Full Implementation of the Act

As the scope of offences covered by the contraventions regime is a critical factor in establishing its relevance, having the regime operational in all jurisdictions is equally important.

The case of Newfoundland and Labrador

During the 2018-19 fiscal year, the province of Newfoundland and Labrador completed all the required steps to allow for contravention tickets to be issued and processed within its court system.^{Footnote 8} This is a significant achievement, which responds to longstanding calls from enforcement authorities to have the regime operational in that province where many sectors, such as the fisheries, are closely integrated within the Atlantic region as a whole.

The evaluation provided an opportunity to document the experience gained thus far by Newfoundland and Labrador in operating the contraventions regime. Overall, findings confirm that this has proven to be a valuable undertaking. Some of the lessons gained to date include the following:

• Having representatives from both the Programs Branch’s Legal Services Division and the Innovation, Analysis and Integration Directorate to assist provincial authorities in determining the required modifications to accommodate tickets issued under the contraventions regime has been beneficial. This includes assessing the range of measures needed to ensure that all applicable official language rights contained in the Criminal Code and the Official Languages Act could be upheld. The flexibility that the Contraventions Act Fund provides to design a strategy that reflects the unique characteristics of each province was also seen as particularly helpful.
• Since the fundamental goal of the contraventions regime is to allow for an existing ticketing system to be used, the level of training required has been limited. Only some unique specificities of the contraventions regime, such as the application of language rights, needed to be fully explained to enforcement authorities and court personnel. Interviews conducted with provincial representatives from Newfoundland and Labrador indicate that these measures have been completed efficiently, and no significant challenges were encountered.
• The increased capacity of the court system to operate in both official languages is proving to be beneficial beyond the contraventions regime, to include services provided as part of criminal matters where proceedings are conducted in French. As noted during interviews, while the vast majority of the population in Newfoundland and Labrador is English speaking, there are Francophone communities in various parts of the province, as well as a significant number of French-speaking individuals and families who visit the province. Whether they require services in English or French, the court system is now better equipped to ensure that such services are efficiently provided.
• Having federal offences enforced through a ticketing system is also lessening the burden on the courts. As noted during interviews, having the ability to proceed using a ticketing system is simpler for the person having been served the ticket, it is less taxing on court personnel, and it reduces the burden on the court resources.

In terms of challenges, by far the most significant one that the province has faced is recruiting and retaining bilingual staff members. To this day, the province has not been in a position to fill all bilingual positions. It continues to work with all stakeholders, including Francophone community organizations, to explore avenues to attract bilingual individuals. In the meantime, however, the province has filled the most critical positions and, as such, has been able to meet the demands for bilingual services. However, as the use of the ticketing system is expected to grow with more enforcement authorities becoming familiar with the system, the province is planning to fill all positions.

Another challenge noted during interviews is providing the required support to all court staff members and enforcement officers as they manage the expansion of the ticketing system to include federal offences. Findings indicate that it is the unknown more than anything else that may initially create nervousness, in addition to misconceptions around the requirements for bilingual services. Having open and regular discussions and adequate training has allowed these concerns to be adequately addressed.

The remaining jurisdictions

The only two remaining provinces where the contraventions regime is not yet operational are Saskatchewan and Alberta. Evaluation findings confirm that considerable efforts have been expended by Justice to facilitate the participation of these two provinces in the regime, but at the time of the evaluation, no agreement had been reached.

The reluctance of these two provinces to allow for the use of the ticketing system contained in the contraventions regime is seen as detrimental to all parties.

• The provincial courts in these two jurisdictions, already facing sustained pressures to reduce delays and gain efficiencies, must divert their limited resources to address the prosecution of federal offences through the summary conviction process, while these offences could easily be dealt with through the Contraventions Act ticketing system. Since the experience to date has shown that most individuals served with a ticket simply pay the fine, this would result in cost savings and efficiencies for these courts that, for the time being, are not being realized.
• Enforcement authorities operating in these two provinces are lacking a critical tool to achieve their mandate. Interviews with enforcement officers and managers clearly confirm that, in the absence of a ticketing system, either they must limit themselves to issuing warnings, which have no consequence in law, or they must divert their time and resources to engage in a summary conviction process that significantly reduces their ability to pursue their mandate on the ground.
• Citizens who are alleged to have committed an offence designated as contraventions in these two provinces must proceed through the summary conviction process and, if found guilty, are exposed to a greater fine and end up with a criminal record, while individuals facing the same charge, under the same circumstances, in provinces where the Contraventions Act is operational, end up with a ticket, with a reduced fine, and no criminal record.
• Despite its best efforts and intention, the federal government is unable to achieve a consistent application of the contraventions regime across Canada.

The last evaluation of the contraventions regime included a recommendation inviting Justice to “develop a strategy with respect to the implementation of the Contraventions Act regime in all provinces.”^{Footnote 9} The Department agreed with the recommendation and has been exploring various options, including ones that would not require an agreement with these two provincial governments to be signed. Findings from this evaluation confirm the importance of pursuing this work in the hope of finding a solution to this longstanding roadblock towards a full implementation of the Contraventions Act.

In addition, Justice is also exploring options to allow for the contraventions regime to be available in the three territories. This is seen as a promising strategy that will undoubtedly serve the interests of enforcement authorities and those residing in these regions.

4.2.2 Administrative Monetary Penalty Regimes

AMP regimes are a well-established tool that may assist enforcement officers in ensuring compliance with legislative and regulatory requirements by using civil penalties. AMP regimes generally consist of an administrative procedure established and managed by a federal department in order to promote compliance with specific legislative or regulatory measures. Civil sanctions in the form of monetary penalties are used to address any occurring violations to these legislative or regulatory provisions. In 2014, Justice completed a study that compared the contraventions and AMP regimes. At the time of the study, 31 federal laws, along with a set of associated regulations, included some form of AMP regime, and covered a number of areas such as aeronautics, agriculture, transportation, employment insurance, the environment, income tax, nuclear safety, and telecommunications.^{Footnote 10} The study noted that the AMP regimes were particularly well suited for “regulated fields that require a high level of expertise or where traditional sanctions, including fines and imprisonment, do not ensure full compliance.”^{Footnote 11} It is important to understand that while these two schemes are related in the enforcement of statutory provisions, they pursue distinct objectives. The goal of the contraventions regime is to provide an alternative to the summary conviction process (i.e. involvement of the courts) that would otherwise be used in the absence of the Program. In contrast, AMP schemes are autonomous systems that create an administrative procedure to ensure compliance through civil penalties in oftentimes specialized fields.

Evaluation findings indicate that both the contraventions and the AMP regimes offer complementary benefits. As noted during interviews with enforcement officers and managers, AMP regimes have proven particularly efficient to address non-compliance files involving corporate entities, where a fine of $500 or $1,000 is simply not sufficient to trigger a change in behaviour.

It is up to each department or agency responsible for an AMP regime to establish the maximum amount of penalty that can be imposed, considering all relevant factors, such as the nature of the non-compliance or the characteristics of the industry (or individuals) to which/whom it applies.

Despite the advantages that AMP regimes may offer, they also raise challenges for those departments and agencies wishing to pursue their implementation. Perhaps the most significant one is the fact that each department or agency wishing to use an AMP regime must establish it in the first place and is responsible for its ongoing management. This is very different from the contraventions regime, which is centralized and managed by Justice, in collaboration with provincial authorities.

The Programs Branch’s Legal Services Division has been building expertise on AMP regimes, in order to support any department or agency interested in adding it to the range of tools available for the enforcement of legislative and regulatory requirements. Better understanding the strengths and limitations of both the contraventions and AMP regimes allows departments and agencies to make informed decision on the best strategies to pursue.

4.2.3 Overall Level of Activity

Issuance of tickets

Provinces and municipalities participating in the contraventions regime are expected to submit yearly activity reports with statistics on the volume of tickets issued in their respective jurisdiction. At the time of the evaluation, data was available for three of the fiscal years covered by this evaluation, namely the period from 2016-17 to 2018-19 (see Table 2). Overall, an average of approximately 33,000 tickets were reported as having been issued annually using the contraventions regime.

These numbers are in line with statistics applicable to previous years.^{Footnote 12} For demographic reasons, the vast majority of tickets are issued in Quebec and Ontario. In addition, because of the structure of the agreement in Ontario, statistics relating to the international airports located in Ottawa and Toronto are reported separately from the remaining tickets issued in that province. Finally, some of the fluctuations observed from year to year result from administrative backlogs in processing tickets.

One important driver behind the volume of tickets issued and the trends observed over time is the level of resources that departments and agencies assign to the actual enforcement of legislative and regulatory provisions. During interviews, it was noted that some departments and agencies have reduced the number of enforcement officers patrolling and monitoring for compliance purposes, which will logically lead to a reduction in the number of tickets issued. Ultimately, however, the contraventions regime is meant to better equip enforcement officers as they carry out their mandate. As such, the number of tickets issued is an informative piece of data, but it must be adequately contextualized.

Measures supported through the Contraventions Act Fund

The Contraventions Act Fund provides financial assistance, as required, to ensure that jurisdictions participating in the contraventions regime uphold applicable language rights contained in the Criminal Code and the Official Languages Act. At the time of the evaluation, all participating provinces except New Brunswick and Quebec were receiving such financial support, as was the city of Mississauga.^{Footnote 13}

Evaluation findings indicate that the range of measures supported through the Fund has remained consistent over time, and typically include the following components:

• bilingual signage and other required equipment (such as bilingual websites, toll-free lines for bilingual services, or video/audio links to provide bilingual services at a distance)
• printing of bilingual tickets
• hiring of bilingual judges or justices of the peace, and other court personnel (such as those working in the court registry)
• accommodation expenses for out-of-province bilingual judges when required
• language training for judges and court personnel

Interviews with representatives from provinces and the municipality receiving assistance under the Fund indicate that the range of funded measures is appropriate and is meeting their respective needs. No formal complaint had been received concerning the provision of bilingual services during the period covered by the evaluation, and interviews with all key stakeholder groups indicate that bilingual services are provided as required.

It is worth emphasizing that, by design, the contraventions regime is meant to minimize the number of interactions required to address an alleged violation of federal offences designated as contraventions. For this reason, the typical scenario involves an individual being served a ticket who, in turn, will proceed to paying the fine. Having bilingual tickets and bilingual web sites to proceed with the payment of fines largely covers these key steps. The remaining measures ensure that other applicable language rights are upheld whenever an individual served with a ticket elects to challenge it or wishes to receive further information by contacting the court registry. The experience to date indicates that approximately 10 percent of individuals being served with a contravention ticket elect to challenge it, and, of that number, an even smaller amount require bilingual services.^{Footnote 14}

4.2.4 Impact on Key Stakeholders

This sub-section summarizes the evaluation findings concerning the impact that the Contraventions Act Program has had on the three predominant groups that are expected to benefit from it, namely the enforcement authorities, the participating provincial and municipal governments, and Canadians more generally.

Impact on enforcement authorities

The benefits of the contraventions regime

The contraventions regime is adding a much-needed component in the toolbox of those enforcement officers charged with enforcing federal statutory offences designated as contraventions. As repeatedly emphasized during interviews, the summary conviction process contained in the Criminal Code is ill suited for the vast majority of cases that enforcement officers must address. It is unnecessarily burdensome for all stakeholders involved (the offender, the enforcement officers, the prosecution services, and the courts), which triggers multiple layers of inefficiencies. In that context, any other means by which federal statutory offences may be enforced represents an important benefit. This is particularly so since the option of proceeding by summary conviction always remains an option when circumstances warrant and where a more severe penalty is sought.

As noted in sub-section 4.2.2, some enforcement authorities focus primarily on the contraventions regime to provide that alternative to the summary conviction process, whereas other agencies pursue a mix between the contraventions regime and an AMP regime.

The main benefits of the contraventions regime identified during interviews with enforcement authorities generally relate to the enhanced capacity it provides for officers to carry out their mandate efficiently. By spending more time on the ground monitoring and investigating, and less time preparing lengthy reports and attending court proceedings, and by having the capacity to react in a timely manner by issuing tickets on the spot when required, enforcement officers are operating within an overall framework that is well aligned with the nature of their responsibilities.

In the absence of alternative means such as the contraventions or AMP regimes, enforcement officers are likely to face some level of resistance from prosecution services or the courts, in attempting to charge individuals through the summary conviction process for offences of a statutory nature. Interviews with both prosecution services and enforcement authorities indicate that the significant burden placed on the courts, combined with the requirement to proceed with charges within a reasonable timeframe, is forcing all justice stakeholders to make decisions on the most appropriate use of the court’s limited time and resources. This places enforcement officers in a challenging position where their cases may, de facto, compete with other offences of a criminal nature in attempting to get the attention of the courts.

Challenges faced

The main challenge that enforcement officers identified through interviews is the fact that fines attached to offences are, at times, not sufficient to adequately penalize the offenders. Historically, fines for offences designated as contraventions have not exceeded $500, reflecting the general nature of these offences, and the reason they were selected to be enforced through a ticketing system. Despite this general trend, there have been instances where greater fines have been included in the contraventions regime. A recent illustration is the designation of a number of offences contained in the Quarantine Act where, in some cases, fines of $750 and $1000 are included.

Technically speaking, nothing prevents the federal government from increasing fines for federal offences designated as contraventions to whatever levels appear appropriate. As noted in the last evaluation of the Contraventions Act Program, the difficulty comes from the fact that there is currently no process to review fines systematically to ensure that they continue to achieve their desired effect. Moreover, modifying these fine levels is an involved process that requires the direct contribution of the department or agency responsible for the enforcement of the legislative or regulatory provisions, along with Justice and central agencies.^{Footnote 15}

Along the same lines, enforcement officers and managers have emphasized the benefit that would come from having a scale of fines available that would better reflect the specific circumstances of an offence or the profile of the offender (e.g. repeat offenders). However, as currently designed, the contraventions regime cannot accommodate such a scale. The Contraventions Act allows the Governor in Council to assign an amount to a specific fine, not a scale.^{Footnote 16} The Act does allow, however, for different fine amounts to be set, based on whether the offence is alleged to have been committed by an individual or a corporation, as long as the act or regulation creating the offence differentiates between these two categories in prescribing the punishment for the offence.^{Footnote 17}

Another challenge noted during interviews is the lack of means by which the payment of fines may be secured. In comparison, provincial governments will typically use the process for renewing a driver’s licence to force the settlement of any outstanding fines. Historically, such an enforcement equivalent has not been available for fines imposed under the Contraventions Act. However, evaluation findings indicate that Justice has obtained confirmation from provincial authorities that administrative mechanisms such as the driver’s licence renewal process are now used to enforce the payment of fines associated with federal contraventions tickets, except in British Columbia and Nova Scotia. Justice has initiated discussions with these two jurisdictions to address that matter.

Impact on participating provincial and municipal governments

By having accepted to implement the contraventions regime, provincial and municipal governments make a vital contribution in establishing a fairer and more efficient justice system, which adequately supports the enforcement of federal statutory offences. The alternative of having the federal government create a separate and distinct system to prosecute federal offences designated as contraventions would inevitably lead to duplications and inefficiencies, particularly in light of the relatively small number of federal tickets issued when compared to provincial or municipal tickets. Continuing to use the summary conviction process to systematically prosecute federal contraventions is equally inefficient. In that sense, the level of federal-provincial collaborations achieved to date is, in itself, a great achievement of the contraventions regime. As repeatedly emphasized during interviews, having the regime also operational in Saskatchewan and Alberta would allow for the full benefits of the contraventions regime to be achieved.

In addition to supporting the effective application of the contraventions regime, participating provinces benefit from a greater level of enforcement of offences committed within their respective region that, in many cases, involve their own enforcement officers. Depending on the nature of the offences and the arrangements in place, municipal and provincial officers (e.g. wildlife officers, environmental officers, municipal police officers, etc.) are charged with the enforcement of federal offences designated as contraventions. Any efficiency achieved through the contraventions regime also allows these officers to carry out their entire mandate more efficiently.

Just as importantly, provincial and municipal courts (as applicable) benefit greatly from having a ticketing system in place that prevents their limited resources from being unnecessarily drained to address offences that can be resolved through a ticketing system. To this day, there have typically been over 20,000 tickets issued annually under the contraventions regime.^{Footnote 18} In the absence of that regime and assuming that enforcement is pursued as expected, all these files would require enforcement officers, prosecution attorneys, court personnel, justices of the peace or judges to be assigned to prosecute them. As noted during interviews, such a scenario is entirely at odds with initiatives and efforts currently underway to enhance the efficiency and the responsiveness of the court system.

Impact on Canadians

In addition to providing enforcement officers with a much-needed tool, the contraventions regime was also designed to achieve a greater distinction between offences of a statutory and criminal nature. More specifically, section 4 (b) of the Contraventions Act underlines that the purpose of the regime is “to alter or abolish the consequences in law of being convicted of a contravention.” In practical terms, this means that individuals who are served a ticket under the contraventions regime face no possibility of imprisonment, no criminal record, and are subject to the same federal fine^{Footnote 19} regardless of the location where the alleged contravention occurred. These individuals are also entitled to all applicable language rights contained in the Criminal Code and the Official Languages Act, which cover both their interactions with the court registry and the tribunal if they elect to challenge their charge.

Evaluation findings confirm that these benefits are currently achieved in every province where the regime is operational. This has practical implications for each individual who has been served a ticket under the contraventions regime. Whether they decide to pay the fine or challenge the ticket, they will engage in a system that is fairer, more relevant and more accessible than what would be experienced in the absence of the regime. Unfortunately, citizens who are currently charged in Saskatchewan and Alberta do not experience these benefits.

4.3 Efficiency

4.3.1 Funding Allocation Process

The process to allocate funding

As indicated in the description of the Contraventions Act Program, Justice has signed agreements with a number of participating provinces and municipalities that include contributions to support the delivery of services in both official languages. At the time of the evaluation, six provinces and one municipality were receiving such funding.

The Innovation, Analysis and Integration Directorate works closely and collaboratively with each province and municipality receiving funding under the Contraventions Act Fund to assess their needs and determine means by which they can best meet the language requirements of the contraventions regime. Interviews with funded provinces and municipality point to a high level of satisfaction with the support that representatives from the Directorate provide on an ongoing basis, and more intensively during the negotiation of the first agreement, or the renewal of existing agreements.

An analysis of funded measures also confirms that provinces and municipalities receiving federal contributions tailor their approach to reflect the characteristics of their court system and the linguistic profile of their province. As such, the evaluation indicates that the range of measures funded through the Contraventions Act Fund strikes an adequate balance between the language requirements contained in the Criminal Code and the Official Languages Act and the specific circumstances of the contraventions regime. For instance, the experience to date indicates that individuals being served a contravention ticket will typically not challenge the ticket or reach out to the courts with questions, but will simply pay the ticket. However, there are cases where individuals challenge their ticket or reach out to the court registry with specific questions. To respond to such requests, provinces and municipalities have ensured that services in both official languages are available through efficient means (such as a centralized toll-free number), and that sufficient capacity exists to allow anyone served with a contravention ticket to challenge it in the official language of their choice.

Quality of the reporting provided

All provinces and municipalities where the contraventions regime is operational are expected to submit annual administrative reports that provide, among other things, details on the number of tickets issued and trials held. Provinces and municipalities that receive funding through the Contraventions Act Fund must also submit financial statements showing all actual expenditures related to this specific funding.

A review of the reports submitted for the period covered by the evaluation indicates that provinces and municipalities provide all required financial statements. In addition, they provide information and data concerning the number of tickets issued and trials held, but significant gaps remain in some of these reports, and there is some lack of consistency in the information provided. Improved reporting on non-financial information and data would better support both the ongoing management of the Contraventions Act Program, and the evaluations of the Program.

4.3.2 Program Efficiency

Overall costs of the Program

While the yearly-allocated budget for the Contraventions Act Program has stood at close to $10 million, the actual level of resources invested has consistently been lower. As indicated in Table 3, Justice has invested between $4 million and $6 million annually in the Program during the period covered by the evaluation.

As further illustrated in Figure 1, this means that between 41% and 61% of the allocated funding to the Program has been used during the period covered by the evaluation. This is consistent with periods covered by previous evaluations of the Program.^{Footnote 20}

The main factor that has contributed to the gap between allocated and used levels of Program resources is the fact that more jurisdictions have been expected to join the contraventions regime, particularly Saskatchewan and Alberta, in addition to potential other participants such as the territories. It is fair to assume that these potential new participants would require assistance under the Contraventions Act Fund to ensure that applicable language rights are upheld as part of the enforcement of federal offences designated as contraventions. The extent to which all remaining resources would be required to meet the needs of these new participants would be further confirmed once agreements are in place.

Resource requirements

During the period covered by the evaluation, the Programs Branch established the Legal Services Division that is tasked, among other things, with supporting the implementation and management of the contraventions regime. As noted in the description of the Contraventions Act Program (see sub-section 2.2), the range of activities the Division undertakes includes the provision of legal assistance and advice on ticketing related matters, negotiation of agreements with provinces and municipalities, changes to the legislative and regulatory framework associated with the regime, ongoing support to federal departments, agencies and provincial counterparts training, and other demands as required. At the time of the evaluation, the Division included one Senior Counsel and Team Leader, and three legal counsel, who work in close collaboration with the Innovation Analysis and Integration Directorate, which focuses more specifically on the Contraventions Act Fund administration.

Findings from the evaluation point to a number of challenges that should be addressed to support the achievement of the contraventions regime’s full range of benefits. Among other things, this includes the continued expansion of the scope of the contraventions regime to other provinces and the territories, and a number of reviews and modifications to ensure the continued relevance of the regime (e.g. expansion of federal offences designated as contraventions, review of fine levels, enforcement of outstanding fines, training activities, etc.). The extent to which the Legal Services Division is sufficiently resourced to successfully carry out all these activities remains uncertain.

• Previous Page
• Table of Contents
• Next Page

Date modified:

2021-06-03