3 Methodology

3.1 Study design

Justice Canada’s Research and Statistics Division (RSD) conducted this study in collaboration with federal, provincial, and territorial (FPT) partners. Data collection was coordinated through the FPT Working Group on Victims of Crime – Sub-Committee on National Victims Data, with support from Statistics Canada’s Canadian Centre for Justice and Community Safety Statistics (CCJCSS) and the Heads of Court Administrators – Courts Statistics Information Sub-Committee (HoCA-CSI). Partners were asked to provide available administrative data for 2010/2011 to 2023/2024, where possible, to capture trends before and after the CVBR came into force in 2015. Requested information included counts of VIS, CIS, and Victim Statements; whether and how statements were presented; offence and sentence type; and victim or community characteristics, where available. The analysis describes what information is currently available, how it is recorded, and where key data gaps and limitations remain.

3.2 Data sources

The analysis draws on three main data sources: Statistics Canada’s Integrated Criminal Court Survey (ICCS); provincial and territorial administrative data from victim services programs, court services, Crown prosecution services, and review boards; and federal corrections and conditional release data from Correctional Service Canada (CSC), the Parole Board of Canada (PBC), and Public Safety Canada’s Corrections and Conditional Release Statistical Overview (CCRSO).

received for consideration in release decisions

Statistics Canada’s Integrated Criminal Court Survey (ICCS)

The ICCS collects information from provincial and territorial court administrative systems on completed adult criminal court and youth court cases.Footnote 2 For this study, the analysis was limited to cases with a finding of guilt, including guilty pleas and findings of guilt by the court. VIS data were available for five jurisdictions—Alberta, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, and the Northwest Territories—for 2016/2017 to 2022/2023. The ICCS VIS variable records whether a VIS was submitted to the court in a case (yes/no); only one VIS can be recorded per case, and presentation in court is not captured. Variables related to CIS and adjournments to allow time for VIS preparation are not currently reported. ICCS data were linked to the Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Survey to obtain additional information on victims of violent crime, including age, gender, and relationship to the accused.

Provincial and territorial administrative data

Provincial and territorial justice partners—including victim services programs, court services, Crown prosecution services, and review boards—provided administrative data on VIS and CIS for 2010/2011 to 2023/2024, where available. Depending on the jurisdiction, counts may refer to statements or packages that were offered, distributed, completed, received, registered, submitted, or filed. These data reflect administrative activity rather than a standardized measure of court filings and are not directly comparable across jurisdictions.

Federal corrections and conditional release data

CSC provided data on Victim Statements for federal offenders by offence type and available victim demographics (age, gender, Indigenous or racialized identity) for 2019/2020 to 2023/2024. Demographic information, including Indigenous and racialized identity, is voluntarily self-reported by victims and is therefore not always provided. Public Safety Canada’s CCRSO was also used to provide historical context on the number of Victim Statements received for consideration in release decisions. Data on victim presentations at PBC hearings from 2020/2021 to 2024/2025 were drawn from the PBC’s Performance Monitoring Report Summary 2024-25. Presentation counts may exceed the number of hearings because more than one victim may present a statement at a hearing.

Text box 2. Interpreting data across jurisdictions and data sources

Findings in this report describe available data and should not be interpreted as direct comparisons across jurisdictions. Justice system partners use different administrative systems, definitions, recording practices, and service delivery models, which affect how VIS and CIS are counted and reported. For example, the ICCS VIS variable records whether a VIS was submitted to the court in a case, with only one VIS recorded per case, while some provincial or territorial systems may record multiple statements in a single case. Jurisdictions may also record statements at different stages of the process, such as when they are offered, completed, received, registered, submitted, or filed. These differences can reflect how statements are managed or recorded, rather than differences in the actual use of statements. Population size, court volume, and data coverage can also affect reported counts.

Information provided by New Brunswick suggests that its ICCS figure may capture VIS records created in the provincial case management system rather than completed VIS submitted to the court. Because New Brunswick accounts for a large share of recorded VIS in the ICCS data, this context should be considered when interpreting ICCS findings.

3.3 Limitations

Data availability, definitions, and recording practices varied across jurisdictions, limiting the ability to produce consistent national information on the use of VIS, CIS, and Victim Statements. Provincial and territorial administrative data should be understood as descriptive measures of administrative activity, rather than standardized measures of statement use. Some of these limitations also apply to ICCS findings, which may be affected by jurisdiction-specific recording practices.

For this study, ICCS data were limited to completed cases with a finding of guilt. This means ICCS data do not capture statements that may have been prepared or submitted in cases that did not result in a finding of guilt. In addition, ICCS data were limited to the most serious offence and sentence in each case, which may not correspond directly to the offence or sentence associated with a VIS. Victim demographic and victim-accused relationship information was available only for a subset of cases (69%) through linkage to the UCR Survey and was further limited to single-victim, single-accused incidents. Information on VIS and CIS presentation, as well as victim characteristics, particularly Indigenous and racialized identity, was limited and not consistently available across data sources.