4 Evaluation Findings

• Previous Page
• Table of Contents
• Next Page

4.1 Relevance of the Contraventions Act regime

4.1.1 The contraventions regime meets the needs of federal departments and agencies

The needs of federal departments and agencies

As noted in section 2.1, the Contraventions Act was initially adopted to provide a much-needed alternative to the summary conviction process. This was in line with other similar initiatives, such as the adoption of the Provincial Offences Act in Ontario in 1979, which replaced the procedures included in the provincial Summary Convictions Act.^{Footnote 3} In each case, the goal was to limit the involvement of the judicial system by allowing enforcement authorities to use, when available and appropriate, a ticketing system to enforce regulatory offences. In practical terms, this meant adding a critical component to the toolkit available to enforcement officers, while keeping the option of proceeding under the summary conviction process when circumstances call for more severe penalties.

More than 30 years after its adoption, the Contraventions Act continues to fill the critical role of providing a procedural framework that reflects the nature of federal regulatory offences. During interviews, enforcement officers and representatives from federal departments and agencies emphasized the fact that the range of regulatory offences continues to grow, as issues related to public health (e.g., the COVID-19 pandemic), the environment, trade and commerce, the management of federal properties, and other areas under federal jurisdiction become ever more complex.

The following examples of offences designated as contraventions illustrate the nature of regulatory offences:

• Paragraph 17(1) of the Maritime Provinces Fishery Regulations: “Possessing more salmon taken by angling than the specified yearly quota”.
• Paragraph 4(1) of the National Historic Parks General Regulations: “Damaging flora, fauna or a natural object”.
• Par. 14(b) of the Airport Traffic Regulations: “Operate motor vehicle in restricted area without valid identification”.
• Sec. 289 of the National Defence Act: “Knowingly make false answer to question put by enrolment officer”.
• Par. 13(1) of the Commercial Vehicle Drivers Hours of Service Regulations: “Drive without required off-duty time”.

In order for regulatory provisions to achieve their intended purpose, they must be enforced through reasonable and appropriate means.

The current tools for enforcement

In addition to the contraventions regime, there are only two other options currently available to enforce federal regulatory offences: the summary conviction process and the AMP regime.

The summary conviction process

The summary conviction process used to stand as the only option to prosecute federal regulatory offences. Previous evaluations and other studies have documented the fact that it arguably represents the least effective and efficient procedural framework that could be used to enforce a multitude of federal regulatory offences, particularly when no aggravating factors are associated with the occurrence of an offence.^{Footnote 4}

Since it was designed for regulatory offences, where severe penalties including imprisonment are at play, the summary conviction process involves many steps, safeguards, and stakeholders, in addition to relying heavily on the judicial system. Among other things, this process requires enforcement officers to gather detailed information to be shared with Crown prosecutors to determine whether charges will be laid. When charges proceed, enforcement officers must file the required information at the courthouse to be reviewed and signed by a provincial judge or a justice of the peace. Enforcement officers also prepare summons to be signed by the judge or the justice of the peace ordering the charged individuals to appear in court. If the charged individuals opt for a trial, enforcement officers must provide the required information and assistance to the Crown, which may require several meetings, in addition to being available to serve as witnesses in court. And in the end, if a person is found guilty under the summary conviction process, they end-up with a criminal record, which may, among other things, limit their ability to secure employment and to travel.

A previous evaluation described the important roadblocks that enforcement officers face when using summary conviction process:

“Convincing the Crown to proceed with a charge related to a federal statutory offence may prove challenging. Resources to prosecute are limited and case loads are significant, so the notion of spending time and resources to prosecute someone who killed three or four migratory birds over the prescribed limit may not be seen as a priority by the Crown. Even if the Crown agrees to proceed with the charge, the presiding judge may not share the opinion that this is time well spent by the court. A number of enforcement officers consulted as part of this evaluation recounted reactions from judges who expressed frustration with having to deal with these statutory offences.”

During interviews, enforcement officers emphasized that the summary conviction process remains a relevant option when the circumstances call for a person to be accountable to the court system and to face penalties greater than what the contraventions regime allows. This is the case when dealing, for instance, with repeat offenders, offenders that show recklessness in contravening with regulatory provisions, or when an enforcement officer wishes to proceed with multiple charges. These, however, remain the exception, not the rule.

The administrative monetary penalty (AMP) regime

To further the goal of achieving efficiencies in enforcing regulatory offences, an increasing number of municipal, provincial, and federal authorities are turning to the AMP regime. A key feature of this regime is that it moves the entire enforcement process of regulatory offences out of the judicial system.^{Footnote 5} Instead of relying on that judicial process, the regulatory authority establishes its own administrative process to promote compliance with the provisions for which it is responsible. In that context, a person who is found to have contravened a regulatory provision must pay a penalty that is meant to deter prohibited behaviours and “to compensate the state for harm done to it”.^{Footnote 6}

For an AMP regime to be used, it must first be authorized by a statute or regulation, which empowers the regulatory authority to impose monetary penalties. On that basis, enforcement officers deliver what is typically referred to as a notice of violation to a person or entity that has contravened a regulatory provision covered by the AMP regime and designated as a violation. The person or entity receiving the notice may decide to pay the penalty, or they may request a review. While the review process may vary across AMP regimes, it must provide an opportunity for the person or entity to be heard, normally by an administrative officer, who may modify or remove the penalty altogether. While some form of appeal may be allowed, it would normally be of an administrative nature, keeping the entire process out of the realm of the judicial system. By now, the courts have recognized the validity and constitutionality of these AMP regimes, including the fact that they do not inherently contravene Charter rights.^{Footnote 7}

An appealing dimension of an AMP regime is the fact that it can be tailored to the environment in which a municipal, provincial or federal entity operates. A municipal AMP regime set up to deal with large volumes of parking violations will be different than a federal AMP regime dealing with highly technical matters predominantly involving corporate entities and engaging high penalties. That inherent flexibility of AMP regimes is also what makes them difficult to fully grasp. At the time of this report, there were no definitive statistics on the number of AMP regimes in Canada, but Justice Canada had identified more than 60 AMP regimes involving federal departments and agencies, and there is an increasing number of them being established by municipal and provincial governments.

Summary

Table 4: Enforcement options

The need for an integrated approach for the enforcement of regulatory offences

The establishment of the contraventions regime and of the AMP regimes served the same fundamental purpose. They provide a procedural framework that is well suited for regulatory offences, recognizing the fact that these offences do not normally require the resource-intensive framework applied to the summary conviction process. Both regimes are meant to better equip federal departments and agencies, along with enforcement officers, in ensuring the effective and appropriate enforcement of these regulatory offences. Finally, they both offer Canadians a procedure that is fair and, as stated in the Contraventions Act, that alters or abolishes the consequences in law of being convicted of a contravention, in light of the distinction between criminal and regulatory offences.

The two regimes are complimentary; however, their coexistence within the federal government requires further considerations.

First, AMP regimes represent a decentralized approach to the enforcement of regulatory offences, leaving each federal department or agency with the responsibility of establishing and managing its AMP regime. At this point, there is no centralized centre of expertise on AMP regimes. Justice Canada Programs Branch’s Legal Services Division provides some expertise and assistance on the AMPs, but its focus remains on the Contraventions Act.

Evaluation findings point to the need for AMP regimes to be administered efficiently and with some consistency across the federal government. In the absence of a coordinated approach, there is a risk of having duplication of efforts or inconsistencies. Determining which offences should be enforced through an AMP regime, the level of penalty to be imposed, the review process to be offered to those receiving notices of violation are all areas where a more coordinated approach would serve federal departments and agencies turning to this type of enforcement regime.

Moreover, as more provinces and municipalities turn to AMP regimes to replace traditional ticketing systems, their operational capacity to process tickets issued under the Contraventions Act may be affected. A case in point is the City of Ottawa, which has historically collaborated with Justice Canada to process, among other things, contravention tickets issued on federal lands located in Ottawa. Until recently, the City of Ottawa has been using the prosecution regime found in the Provincial Offences Act – a framework compatible with the Contraventions Act – to process municipal tickets. As a result, it had the capacity and systems to efficiently add federal contravention tickets to its operations. However, since June 2025, the City of Ottawa has implemented an AMP regime that deals with all municipal parking violations occurring on its territory. Thus, processing federal contraventions tickets is raising practical and operational challenges, as the former infrastructure of the City of Ottawa to process tickets is being replaced by a separate AMP regime. It is worth noting that the objective of the City of Ottawa is to expand the use of this AMP regime to other municipal regulatory offences. It is reasonable to assume that this type of issue could occur in other jurisdictions in Canada.

A challenge for the enforcement of federal offences is that municipal or provincial AMP regimes cannot be incorporated the same way that ticketing regimes have been. AMP regimes vary considerably in their structure and operations, and they are found at both the municipal and provincial levels. Incorporating existing AMP regime would also replicate the dependency on other authorities, which has proven difficult with the Contraventions Act.

Evaluation findings indicate that it would be important for Justice Canada to articulate how it intends to support the use of the procedural frameworks found in the Contraventions Act and in all the federal statutes and regulations that have established AMP regimes. This would include an analysis of the impact of AMP regimes in provinces and municipalities on their operational capacity to process contraventions tickets.

4.1.2 The Contraventions Act Fund is aligned with some federal priorities, but it is not aligned with the Action Plans for Official Languages

In its Quality of Life Framework, the federal government has identified a number of priority areas, including the need to build “confidence in access to fair and equal justice”. The contraventions regime, by supporting a fair and appropriate enforcement of regulatory offences, is contributing to this federal priority.

To date, the Contraventions Act Fund has also been included in successive action plans on official languages. The Fund is a necessary component of the Contraventions Act Program 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. More specifically, the Contraventions Act Fund ensures that language rights are respected in relation to the issuing and processing of contraventions tickets, in line with the Part IV obligations of the Official Languages Act.^{Footnote 9}

However, its support focusses on service delivery and does not extend to the enhancement of the vitality of Official Language Minority Communities, which is a core objective of the action plans on official languages. While the Fund is essential to the ongoing management of federal tickets issued under the Contraventions Act, it does not contribute to the measures required under Part VII of the Official Languages Act, and does not align with the goals of these action plans.^{Footnote 10}

The 2017 evaluation of the Contraventions Act Program “found no substantive rationale for integrating the Fund in the Roadmap (for Canada’s Official Languages 2013–2018), and evidence indicates that keeping the Fund within the Roadmap is, in fact, counterproductive.”^{Footnote 11} By doing so, the Fund is included in an accountability and renewal framework that does not reflect its nature and purpose.

Both the 2021 evaluation of the Contraventions Act Program and the 2023 horizontal evaluation of the Action Plan for Official Languages reached similar conclusions. The Contraventions Act Fund sustains the federal contraventions system and ensures that language rights are respected. It does not align with the Action Plan’s goal of supporting the vitality of official language minority communities, and is the primary Action Plan component that does not fit with its objectives.^{Footnote 12 Footnote 13}

During the period covered by this evaluation, Parliament adopted significant changes to the Official Languages Act, including paragraph 2.1 (1) stating that “the Minister of Canadian Heritage shall, in consultation with the President of the Treasury Board, develop and maintain a government-wide strategy that sets out the overall official languages priorities.” In practical terms, this means that action plans on official languages, which were traditionally viewed as specific initiatives, are now part of an ongoing responsibility attributed to Canadian Heritage. This new structure for these actions plans creates an opportunity for Justice Canada to address the artificial distinction between the Contraventions Act and the Fund, and the fact that this Fund must remain fully integrated in the management process of the Contraventions Act, and not of action plans on official languages.

4.2 Effectiveness

4.2.1 The Contraventions Act Program supports the effective enforcement of federal regulatory offences

The benefits achieved with the contraventions regime

The contraventions regime benefits enforcement officers by making a critical tool available in support of their work. A key consideration is the fact that the regime does not take anything away from the toolbox of enforcement officers. It simply adds a component that is well suited to the nature of their work.

As noted during interviews, in executing their mandate, these enforcement officers must respond to a variety of circumstances that call for different courses of action. In some cases, issuing a warning is all that is needed to promote compliance with some regulatory provisions. In other cases, when the circumstances associated with an offence are far more serious, proceeding with the summary conviction process found in the Criminal Code provides an opportunity to seek a greater fine and serves to illustrate the seriousness of the matter. However, both the warnings and the summary conviction process stand as the exception rather than the norm. Regulatory offences are still offences, and issuing warnings, which have no consequences in law, has limited use. As for the summary conviction process, it is primarily designed to prosecute more serious offences.

Regulatory offences are of a different nature, and as noted by the Supreme Court of Canada, they “involve a shift of emphasis from the protection of individual interests and the deterrence and punishment of acts involving moral fault to the protection of public and societal interests.”^{Footnote 14} For this reason, the procedural framework offered by the Contraventions Act, or by an AMP regime, finds a far greater application in enforcing these offences.

By removing a significant portion of the prosecution process outside the judiciary system, the Contraventions Act is also benefiting the courts, which, in many parts of the country, are struggling to address the volume of files assigned to them. Only when individuals wish to challenge the contravention tickets they received do the courts become significantly involved and historical data confirm that this represents a small portion of tickets issued.

Ultimately, and as stated in the Act itself, the contraventions regime is meant to benefit Canadians by providing a procedural framework that alters or abolishes the consequence in law of being convicted of a contravention.

The range of federal regulatory offences designated as contraventions

Having the Contraventions Act regime available is an important step, but just as important is ensuring that the range of regulatory offences designated as contraventions continues to respond to the requirements of enforcement authorities.

Previous evaluations stressed the importance of broadening the scope of offences designated as contraventions. In particular, the report from the evaluation conducted in 2021 noted that “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.”^{Footnote 15}

Findings gathered as part of the current evaluation indicate that Justice Canada has achieved a level of designation of regulatory offences as contraventions that largely meets the needs of federal departments and agencies using the regime. There will always be a need to constantly monitor, expand, and adjust the range of designated offences to reflect new regulatory provisions that may be enacted, but the evaluation did not identify significant gaps.

Tickets issued during the evaluation period

At the time of the evaluation, only limited data was available on the number of tickets issued in the various provinces and municipalities that participate in the contraventions regime. With these gaps in data, which are further discussed in sub-section 4.2.4 of this report, it is not possible to provide an overall portrait of the extent to which the regime has been used.

The data that is available indicates that contravention tickets have been issued in relation to key areas of federal jurisdiction, such as federal ports and marine activities, environmental protection, the railways, the transportation of dangerous goods, fisheries, migratory birds, and national parks. More specific to the period covered by the evaluation, contravention tickets were also issued under the Quarantine Act for a series of offences related to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Key challenges

The regime is not operational in all provinces

Ever since the Contraventions Act was enacted, an ongoing challenge has been to ensure its implementation across Canada. Over time, Justice Canada has invested considerable efforts to sign agreements with provincial governments to enable the use of their procedural framework to prosecute federal regulatory offences designated as contraventions. The last province to join the regime is Newfoundland and Labrador, which completed the necessary steps during the fiscal year 2018-19. During interviews, representatives from the province, as well as enforcement officers operating in that province, emphasized the benefits that have come from having the regime operational in the province. Enforcement officers can use the regime to enforce a range of offences, particularly those related to fisheries, and the court system has enhanced its ability to operate in both official languages.

The two remaining provinces where the regime is not operational are Saskatchewan and Alberta. Successive evaluations of the Contraventions Act Program have documented the negative impacts that result from this situation. As noted in the 2021 evaluation:

• The provincial courts in these two jurisdictions must divert their limited resources to address the prosecution of federal offences, while these offences could easily be dealt through the contraventions regime.
• Enforcement authorities operating in these two provinces are lacking a critical tool to achieve their mandate.
• Citizens who are alleged to have committed offences designated as contravention, if found guilty, are exposed to greater fines and end up with a criminal record.^{Footnote 16}

Before that, the 2017 evaluation of the Program noted that the ongoing inability to secure the participation of Alberta and Saskatchewan “has lost any provisional dimension, and has turned into a systemic flaw (un vice de fond).”^{Footnote 17}

Two main options were identified to address this systemic issue: an increased reliance on AMP regimes, or the establishment of an autonomous contraventions regime in accordance with the Contraventions Act, which would require investments in time and resources. Some combination of the two options could also be considered. What remains problematic is the option of the status quo, which does not align with the goal of ensuring a consistent enforcement of federal regulatory offences.

Ongoing support and training

Another challenge noted during the interviews conducted as part of this evaluation is the fact that each participating province has its own procedural framework applicable to regulatory offences. As a result, while some federal regulatory offences designated as contraventions may be readily enforced through the ticketing system in one province, enforcement officers in another province may find it easier, or more convenient, to continue proceeding through the summary conviction process.

This serves as an important reminder that providing ongoing training, tailored to each provincial regime, is critical to ensure that the contraventions regime can achieve its full potential. This is particularly important when new offences are designated as contraventions, as they may involve different enforcement authorities, and a transition period is to be expected before all key stakeholders in the enforcement chain are comfortable using the contraventions regime.

During interviews, key informants noted that Justice Canada has a limited capacity to provide ongoing training, including the training needed as a result of turnover among enforcement officers. While training activities are offered, they are provided based on the availability of resources within Justice Canada and multiple training partners, such as client-departments Legal Services Units counsel, Public Prosecution Service of Canada prosecutors, provincial court services representative and prosecutors.

Maintaining the adequacy of fines

Ensuring that the fines associated with each regulatory offence are adequate is an ongoing challenge. There is no standard formula for determining these fines. Instead, a myriad of factors must be weighed, including fine levels for offences of the same nature included in other federal, provincial, or municipal statutes or regulations. Also, the level of fine must reflect the nature and scope of the offence and its anticipated impact. As noted in a study commissioned by Justice Canada, increasing fine levels is not always the appropriate strategy to achieve the desired compliance:

“The real-world impact of higher fines on offending is much more complex than the relationship predicted by rational choice theory. Though some studies find that fine increases can significantly reduce the likelihood of offending, others show that these increases are only effective up to a point or not effective at all. There are also instances when higher fine amounts may backfire or increase offending behaviour.”^{Footnote 18}

Despite ongoing efforts from Justice Canada to include increased fine amounts in regulatory amendment mandates, evaluation findings confirm that this challenge remains. While some enforcement officers urged for fines to be increased, others noted that some offences have fines that are too high, limiting their ability to readily enforce these provisions.^{Footnote 19} Each case has its specific characteristics. As a result a systemic approach is required to ensure that fines are reconsidered on a cyclical basis, through a process that involves enforcement officers and that considers factors such as inflation and practices among provinces and municipalities for offences of a similar nature.

It is the responsibility of each department or agency responsible for a statute or regulations to ensure that the fine levels are adequate. Justice Canada, however, provides valuable expertise and supports client departments in this process. As a result, increasing fine amounts has become an ongoing initiative.

4.2.2 The Contraventions Act Fund enhances the capacity to deliver services and activities in accordance with applicable language rights

Activities supported through the Contraventions Act Fund

The Contraventions Act Fund provides financial support to participating provinces and municipalities to ensure that all applicable language rights included in the Criminal Code and in the Official Languages Act are respected in the administration and prosecution of federal offences designated as contraventions.^{Footnote 20} Activities supported through the Fund typically include:

• 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

During interviews, representatives from participating provinces and municipalities indicated that this support is meeting their needs. The primary challenge they face is recruiting and retaining the bilingual personnel in these positions. Otherwise, these courts have successfully implemented the activities for which they have received funding.

It was also noted during interviews that the impacts of the Fund went beyond the administration and prosecution of federal offences designated as contraventions. Through the Fund, the courts’ capacity to offer services in both official languages was increased, whether as part of criminal proceedings, or in other settings where language rights are applicable.

4.2.3 Program activities are aligned with their intended outcomes

The evaluation provides an opportunity to assess the extent to which the activities covered by the Contraventions Act Program are adequately aligned with the Program’s intended outcomes as described in its Program Information Profile (PIP).

The most recent PIP for the Program was prepared in 2021, and the Program logic model that it contains strongly reflects the range of activities undertaken by the Program and its intended impacts on federal departments and agencies, enforcement authorities, the court system, and Canadians. It presents an integrated articulation of the legal activities undertaken to support the Contraventions Act, and the critical role played by the Contraventions Act Fund to ensure that all applicable language rights are respected.

4.2.4 Performance information is lacking in quality and consistency

In accordance with their agreement with Justice Canada, participating provinces and municipalities^{Footnote 21} commit to providing, on an annual basis, some key performance information, including the following items:

• Number of tickets issued specifying the Act or regulations under which the offences were committed;
• Number of tickets for which the fine was paid voluntarily;
• Number of trials requested in French;
• Number of trials requested in English;
• Number of trials held in French;
• Number of complaints concerning non-compliance with the applicable language rights.
• Fine amount remitted to Canada

This performance information serves the ongoing management of the Program. This data includes valuable insights on the level of activities based on the various statutes and regulations that include designated offences, in addition to monitoring the level of activities throughout the various regions where the Contraventions Act is operational.

Evaluation findings point to significant challenges in relation to the performance data currently received by Justice Canada. Performance data is missing from a number of participating provinces and municipalities, and for a number of fiscal years. Some of these challenges result from the systems in place in some of these provinces or municipalities that are not programmed to readily provide this information. Further processing of the data generated by some of these systems is required in order to provide data required as part of the Contraventions Act agreements.

While such shortcomings were noted in previous evaluations of the Program, the issues identified in relation to the current evaluation period are more significant. The gaps in data are greater and, in some cases, a closer review of the data provided indicated that some of the offences reported were, in fact, based on provincial statutes or regulations, but they may have been issued by federal enforcement officers (as allowed under some statutes or regulations).

In light of these findings, Justice Canada and its provincial and municipal partners should further assess the factors that contribute to these data issues and identify strategies to ensure that the required data is, in fact, collected with accuracy and timeliness.

4.3 Efficiency

4.3.1 The COVID-19 pandemic led to fluctuations in program costs

The period covered by the evaluation was marked by an overall increase in program expenditures. The COVID-19 pandemic led to fluctuations in the costs incurred by participating provinces and municipalities. First, the pandemic disrupted the conduct of some funded activities. This was followed by increased court activities to process tickets and hold proceeding related to the wider range of offences that were designated as contraventions, including new provisions in the Quarantine Act.

Overall cost of the Program

The overall cost of the Program has increased during the evaluation period. As indicated in Table 5, the total cost (including both operational costs and contributions to participating provinces and municipalities) went from $5.1 million in 2020-21 to $7.3 million in 2024-25.

Table 5: Actual expenditures associated with the Contraventions Act Program

Over the evaluation period, the Programs Branch’s Legal Services Division team increased from 1.5 to 4.4 full-time employees. During that same period, a new collective agreement for legal counsel was implemented, which also contributed to higher operational costs.

Allocation to provincial and municipal partners

A key driver behind the fluctuations in program expenditures is the COVID-19 pandemic, which led to the disruption of activities undertaken by the participating provinces and municipalities. In accordance with the terms of the agreement they signed with Justice Canada, these provinces and municipalities are reimbursed for the actual expenses incurred in any given fiscal year up to the maximum amount established in their agreement.

Financial information from the first three years covered by the evaluation period (FY 2020-21 to FY 2022-23) indicates that the actual expenditures incurred by the provincial and municipal partners receiving financial assistance from the Contraventions Act Fund were systematically lower than the allocated budget included in their agreements. This reflected the fact that some of the planned activities, such as training and in-person operations of the courts, were reduced or cancelled as a result of the pandemic. As more normal operations resumed, so was the ability to undertake these activities, which led to the higher levels of costs during the later part of the period covered by the evaluation.

During interviews, representatives from provincial governments and court managers noted that the challenges faced in recruiting and retaining bilingual staff members constitute another factor that leads to fluctuations in actual costs incurred in accordance with their agreements.

Finally, the agreements also allow the participating provinces and municipalities to transfer up to 20% of the funds provided from one class of expenditure to another (e.g., from training activities to purchasing equipment). During interviews, representatives from provincial or municipal partners noted that this flexibility is helpful in ensuring that the funded activities reflect emerging needs or circumstances.

4.3.2 The current Program delivery approach is effective

The current approach to delivering the Contraventions Act Program offers benefits, while also featuring limitations. As documented in this report, one of the shortcomings of the Program is that the contraventions regime is still not operating in Saskatchewan and Alberta.

On the upside, one of the key strengths of the Program is the fact that it is administered on a cost recovery basis. Fines collected through contravention tickets serve to cover the administrative costs incurred by provincial and municipal partners, and any surplus once these costs have been considered is split equally between the federal government and the participating province or municipality. The only direct costs to Justice Canada are those related to the internal work undertaken by the Policy Sector of Justice Canada, and the financial assistance provided through the Contraventions Act Fund, which reflects that language requirements contained in the Criminal Code and the Official Languages Act.

• Previous Page
• Table of Contents
• Next Page