5 Discussion

The findings in this report should be understood in the context of how VIS, CIS, and Victim Statements are submitted, recorded, and reported across justice system contexts and jurisdictions. Not all eligible victims choose or are able to submit a statement, and administrative systems do not record statement activity in the same way. The ICCS analysis was limited to cases with a finding of guilt. The ICCS VIS variable records whether a VIS was submitted to the court in a case, with a maximum of one VIS recorded per case. As a result, statements prepared or submitted in cases that did not result in a finding of guilt are not captured, and cases involving multiple statements are counted only once.

National data on participation through VIS, CIS, and Victim Statements remain incomplete and uneven. The ICCS provides the only national court data source that currently includes recorded VIS information, but coverage is limited to five jurisdictions, and the CIS variable is not currently reported. Provincial and territorial administrative data provide additional insight, but they come from different systems and vary in scope, definitions, and recording practices.

Within the available ICCS data, VIS were recorded in a minority of cases with a finding of guilt, although the proportion increased gradually over time. In the federal corrections context, the number of Victim Statements remained relatively stable over the past five years, while presentations of Victim Statements at conditional release hearings increased modestly.

Across justice system contexts, statements were most often associated with violent offences, including assault, sexual assault, homicide, and IPV. Based on linked ICCS–UCR data, most cases with a recorded VIS involved victims who knew the accused, often as intimate partners, family members, or acquaintances. These patterns highlight the relational and emotional context in which victims may participate through these statements and underscore the importance of trauma-informed and safety-focused supports throughout the justice process.

Important data gaps remain, particularly for CIS use, statement presentation, and victim identity characteristics. CIS are not currently reported through the ICCS and are less systematically captured than VIS in provincial and territorial administrative data. Few jurisdictions systematically record whether VIS or CIS are presented in court or review board proceedings, such as whether they are read aloud or presented by another person. Information on presentation methods, including the use of testimonial aids, was not available. Information on victim identity, particularly Indigenous and racialized identity, is also not consistently collected across data sources. These gaps make it difficult to understand whether different groups of victims have similar opportunities to use VIS, CIS, and Victim Statements. Ongoing work led by Statistics Canada to strengthen the collection of police-reported Indigenous and racialized identity data through the UCR Survey may improve the availability of this information in future research (Statistics Canada, 2025).

The findings point to the need for continued collaboration among FPT partners to improve the availability, consistency, and quality of data on participation through VIS, CIS, and Victim Statements. More consistent definitions, recording practices, and reporting approaches would support a clearer understanding of how these tools are used, who is able to access them, and where additional supports or data improvements may be needed.