Addressing the Continuing Victimization of Homicide Victims' Families Act

Summary#

The bill’s short title is the Addressing the Continuing Victimization of Homicide Victims’ Families Act. If enacted, it would amend the Criminal Code, the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and the Prisons and Reformatories Act. Its stated goal is to deter offenders from refusing to share information about where a person’s body or remains are located.

• A sentencing court that is satisfied an offender has this information but refuses to share it must consider the refusal an aggravating circumstance (a factor that can support a harsher sentence). If the court does not give it effect in sentencing, it must explain why.
• For a qualifying sentence of at least two years for an offence related to a person’s death, the court must generally set full-parole ineligibility at half the sentence or 10 years, whichever is less. It may use the usual period instead if it finds that period would adequately serve denunciation and deterrence.
• The court must revoke that order if it is satisfied the circumstances for making it have ceased to exist.
• The Parole Board of Canada and provincial parole boards may refuse parole in the specified circumstances. The federal Board may also refuse an unescorted temporary absence; a designated authority may refuse a temporary absence under the Prisons and Reformatories Act.
• The two federal Acts would require relevant decision-makers to consider a court’s order about parole ineligibility.

What it means for you#

• People sentenced for offences related to a death: If the court is satisfied you have information about where the body or remains are and refuse to provide it to persons in authority, the refusal must be considered at sentencing. It may also affect when you can apply for full parole and decisions about parole or temporary absences. Parole ineligibility is not the same as a decision to grant parole.
• Families of people who died: The bill does not guarantee that information will be disclosed or that remains will be found. It does not create a direct right to receive information.
• Courts and parole decision-makers: The bill would add duties and powers to sentencing, parole and temporary-absence decisions. A refusal does not automatically mean parole or an absence must be denied: the relevant boards and authorities may refuse.
• The public: The bill does not create a general duty for people to report the location of remains. Its consequences apply to offenders who meet the bill’s conditions.

Money#

No cost information is in the available material.

• The bill provides no spending amount, staffing plan or estimate of added court or parole-system costs. No publicly available information on those costs is supplied.

What is unclear#

• The parent Acts were not supplied, so I could not verify how the proposed changes compare with current sentencing, parole and temporary-absence rules.
• The bill does not define “persons in authority,” or explain how decision-makers should determine whether an offender has the information and is refusing to provide it.
• It does not set out a process for making those findings, such as notice, evidence rules, timelines or review rights.
• It does not explain how decision-makers would determine that the circumstances behind a parole-ineligibility order have ceased to exist.
• The bill does not state when it would come into force.

Case for#

• The bill appears intended to address the continuing harm families may face when remains are not found. Treating a refusal as an aggravating factor and allowing it to affect parole decisions may be seen as a way to discourage that refusal.
• Requiring courts to consider the refusal, and to explain when they do not apply it in sentencing, could make the issue more visible in sentencing decisions.
• Giving parole authorities the power to consider the refusal could allow them to take it into account when deciding whether to grant parole or a temporary absence.

Case against#

• The bill does not explain how courts or parole authorities should decide whether an offender has the information or is refusing to share it. That leaves important questions about how the trigger would be applied.
• A sentencing court must consider the refusal, but the bill does not require a higher sentence. The effect could therefore differ between cases.
• The parole and temporary-absence provisions permit refusal; they do not require it. The bill does not set out how those decisions should weigh disclosure against other relevant information.
• The bill’s goal of encouraging disclosure does not ensure it will locate remains or reduce the harm to families.