Monetary penalties in adult criminal courts
Released: 2025-01-09
Fines were the most frequently ordered monetary penalty for guilty offenders, accounting for 23% of penalties in adult criminal court cases completed during the period from April 1, 2019, to March 31, 2023. These were followed by victim surcharge orders (16%) and restitution orders (4%).
In the Canadian criminal justice system, restitution, victim surcharges and fines are among the penalties judges can consider when selecting an appropriate sentence for an offender found guilty of the charges laid against them. These monetary penalties require that the offender pay a sum of money to the state or the victim as part of the imposed sentence.
Little change in use of restitution orders
Restitution
Restitution is a court-ordered payment made by the offender to the victim to compensate for financial losses directly associated with the crime. A restitution order can be a stand-alone penalty, a condition of probation or a conditional sentence.
The Canadian Victims Bill of Rights (CVBR), implemented in July 2015, grants specific rights to victims, including the right to have the court consider issuing a restitution order against the offender. The CVBR emphasizes the financial compensation of victims as part of the justice process.
The section below examines the use of restitution throughout three periods: pre-CVBR (April 1, 2011, to March 31, 2015), post-CVBR (April 1, 2015, to March 31, 2019), and extended post-CVBR (April 1, 2019, to March 31, 2023). While the CVBR was implemented in July 2015, the timeframes are adjusted slightly to accommodate the data.
Despite the implementation of the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights (CVBR), there was no change in the proportion of cases (5%) for which guilty offenders were ordered to pay restitution in the four years following its introduction, from April 1, 2015, to March 31, 2019. This proportion then fell to 4% for guilty cases completed during the period from April 1, 2019, to March 31, 2023. Please see Table 1 for more information.
Prince Edward Island reported the highest proportion of adult criminal court cases where the offender was ordered to pay restitution across all three reference periods: 21% throughout the pre- and post-CVBR periods, and 18% in the extended post-CVBR period.
The proportion of cases where the offender was sentenced to pay restitution remained stable in most provinces and territories throughout all three reference periods. New Brunswick, with a decrease of 1 percentage point, was the only province or territory that experienced a decline in the proportion of cases with restitution orders in the four-year period following the introduction of the CVBR.
Yukon was the only province or territory to report an increase in restitution orders over all three reference periods. The proportion rose from 3% of cases in the four years before the implementation of the CVBR to 7% in the four years following its introduction, and it reached 10% during the extended post-CVBR period.
Chart 1
Proportion of guilty adult criminal court cases sentenced to pay restitution by province and territory, 2011/2012 to 2022/2023
Restitution orders rarely occur in combination with other sentences. Overall, 6 of the 11 provinces and territories covered here (See the Note to readers for more information) reported restitution orders as a condition of probation or as part of a conditional sentence. Among these provinces and territories, 91% of restitution orders were stand-alone penalties over all three reference periods. New Brunswick reported the highest proportion of restitution orders as a condition of probation orders (69%) and of conditional sentences (11%). Please see Table 2 for more information.
Restitution was ordered in 2% or less of guilty cases for most crime categories across all three reference periods. However, offenders were sentenced to pay restitution in 16% of cases where a property crime was the most serious offence. Among property crimes, those found guilty of fraud or mischief were most frequently ordered to pay restitution (28%).
Use of restitution highest among cases involving a charge of fraud
Restitution was ordered in cases involving fraud more frequently than in cases involving mischief (which includes vandalism) across all three reference periods. Close to one-quarter (24%) of cases with at least one charge of fraud included an order of restitution, compared with 17% of those with at least one charge of mischief.
In the four years leading up to the implementation of the CVBR, there were just under 49,000 cases involving a charge of fraud, with just over half (51%) resulting in a guilty decision. More than one-quarter (28%) of these guilty cases received a sentence that included a restitution order. Despite the introduction of the CVBR, the proportion of cases that included a guilty fraud charge and a restitution order decreased to 23% over the four years following its enactment.
Overall, there has been a decline in the proportion both of guilty decisions and of cases receiving restitution sentences. During the extended post-CVBR period, there were nearly 42,000 cases involving fraud, with 43% resulting in a guilty decision and 19% of those guilty decisions resulting in the offender being sentenced to pay restitution.
Most restitution orders in adult corrections under $500
Insight into the amounts of restitution ordered and the characteristics of the individuals ordered to pay this type of penalty can be gleaned from adult correctional services data.
Overall, orders with restitution accounted for 3% of all probation and conditional sentence orders reported for adults serving community sentences during the period from April 1, 2015, to March 31, 2019. This fell slightly to 2% during the period from April 1, 2019, to March 31, 2023.
Based on the information from four provinces reporting the amount of restitution ordered, close to half (48%) of the restitution orders imposed on adults supervised by correctional services during the period from April 1, 2015, to March 31, 2019, were for less than $500. Although it was still the greatest proportion of restitution orders issued, those of less than $500 decreased to 44% for those under supervision during the period from April 1, 2019, to March 31, 2023.
Chart 2
Proportion of restitution orders in adult corrections by amount of restitution ordered, 2015/2016 to 2022/2023
During the period from April 1, 2015, to March 31, 2023, 79% of restitution orders were issued to men, whereas 21% were issued to women. These proportions were consistent with the proportion of adults admitted to community services.
The breakdown of restitution by age group also aligned with the distribution of age groups admitted to community services during this period. Just over one-third (36%) of community supervision orders with restitution were issued to adults aged 25 to 34 years, followed by adults aged 35 to 44 (24%), then those aged 24 and younger (22%), and those aged 45 and older (18%). This information is based on data from five provinces reporting the demographics of adults serving community sentences. Please see Table 3 for more information.
Inclusion of victim surcharges in sentencing drops significantly after Charter challenge
Victim surcharges
Another form of monetary penalty that a judge can order is a victim surcharge. This is an additional fine imposed on the offender, which is typically paid into provincial and territorial assistance funds to develop and provide programs, services and assistance for victims of crime.
Former Bill C-37, introduced in 2013, removed the judicial discretion to waive the surcharge. This remained in effect until 2018, when the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that the mandatory victim surcharge was unconstitutional in R. v. Boudreault. In response, former Bill C-75 was enacted in June 2019 to reinstate judicial discretion to exempt offenders from the surcharge under certain conditions.
Following the re-instatement of judicial discretion to exempt offenders from victim surcharges, the proportion of guilty adult criminal court cases with a victim surcharge order imposed as part of the sentence decreased significantly, from 85% during the period from April 1, 2015, to March 31, 2019, to 16% during the period from April 1, 2020, to March 31, 2023. Please see Table 4 for more information.
Although a decline in the use of victim surcharge orders in adult criminal courts was reported for all provinces and territories covered here, Nunavut saw the largest decrease, with the percentage of cases receiving an order for victim surcharges dropping 81 percentage points following the implementation of former Bill C-75.
Chart 3
Proportion of guilty adult criminal court cases sentenced to pay a victim surcharge, 2015/2016 to 2022/2023
In all provinces and territories covered here, the proportion of victim surcharge orders decreased across all types of offences. Meanwhile, Criminal Code traffic offences continued to have the highest proportion of victim surcharges ordered, even though this proportion dropped from 91% to 32% following the introduction of former Bill C-75.
After eight years of stability, fine sentences decrease from 31% to 23% of guilty cases
Fines
Fines are another type of monetary penalty that an offender must sometimes pay to the court as a result of having been found guilty of committing a crime. A fine may be combined with another penalty, such as imprisonment or probation. Both individuals and corporations can be fined.
The proportion of guilty cases that resulted in a fine being ordered in adult criminal courts remained stable at 31% during the period from April 1, 2011, to March 31, 2019, then declined to 23% during the period from April 1, 2020, to March 31, 2023.
Chart 4
Proportion of guilty adult criminal court cases sentenced to pay a fine, 2011/2012 to 2022/2023
Considering the small proportion of cases where the offender was sentenced to pay restitution, the introduction of the CVBR did not have a significant impact on the proportion of cases sentenced to pay a fine that were also sentenced to pay restitution (1% before the introduction of the CVBR vs. 2% during the four years following its introduction). Please see Table 1 for more information.
In contrast, before the introduction of former Bill C-75, a victim surcharge was ordered in nearly 9 out of every 10 cases where the accused was sentenced to pay a fine. With the decline in victim surcharges ordered following the introduction of former Bill C-75, the proportion of cases sentenced to pay a victim surcharge fell from 89% to 32% of cases where a fine was sentenced. This was a result of decreases in all the provinces and territories covered here.
Chart 5
Proportion of guilty adult criminal court cases sentenced to pay a victim surcharge, among those sentenced to pay a fine, 2015/2016 to 2022/2023
Did you know we have a mobile app?
Download our mobile app and get timely access to data at your fingertips! The StatsCAN app is available for free on the App Store and on Google Play.
Note to readers
This release was produced with funding support from the Department of Justice Canada.
The Integrated Criminal Court Survey (ICCS) is administered by Statistics Canada's Canadian Centre for Justice and Community Safety Statistics (CCJCSS) in collaboration with provincial and territorial government departments responsible for criminal courts in Canada. The survey collects statistical information on adult and youth court cases involving Criminal Code and other federal statute offences. Data contained in this release represent the adult criminal court portion of the survey, namely, individuals who were 18 years of age and older at the time of the offence.
This analysis excludes Quebec because its ICCS data were unavailable for 2021/2022 and 2022/2023. Manitoba is also excluded because it does not report restitution or victim surcharge information.
Previous analyses on monetary penalties presented results using the ICCS case definition, which depicts counts using the most serious decision and most serious offence as the representative charge in a case. This approach may have led to an undercount of cases resulting in a monetary penalty sentence since it would need to be associated with the representative charge. The current release uses an updated methodology that prioritizes the most serious guilty offence that includes a monetary penalty as the representative charge.
Information on restitution reported to the ICCS represents cases that received a guilty decision and does not include cases where restitution was ordered as part of an alternative measure or a peace bond. As a result, restitution information in the ICCS may be undercounted.
Recording restitution as a condition of another sentence is up to the clerk's discretion and therefore may be undercounted in ICCS data. Restitution ordered as a condition of another type of sentence is not reported by Newfoundland and Labrador, Alberta, British Columbia, the Northwest Territories, or Nunavut. Most restitution orders in New Brunswick are reported as a condition of probation.
Victim surcharge counts may be underestimated because of the optional reporting of this variable for the ICCS. The minimum number of cases where a victim surcharge was imposed is shown.
This analysis also uses data from the Canadian Correctional Services Survey (CCSS), conducted by the CCJCSS. The CCSS collects administrative data from correctional services programs on the characteristics of persons being supervised, their legal hold status while in correctional services, offences and conditions related to the various court orders, events related to the person that occur during the period of supervision, and results of any needs assessments done on persons while in correctional services. The CCSS data in this analysis represent adult correctional services data from five reporting provinces, namely Nova Scotia, Ontario, Saskatchewan, Alberta, and British Columbia. Restitution from correctional services data has been identified as a condition of probation orders, conditional sentences or any other community sentence. Stand-alone orders, if collected, represent a very small fraction of restitution in reporting jurisdictions. Stand-alone orders, as well as data on the amount of restitution ordered, are not available for Nova Scotia.
For more information and context on restitution, see, for example, Restitution: An Update on the Numbers and Restitution Orders.
For more information and context on sentencing, see, for example, How sentences are imposed.
For more information about the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights and victims' rights, see, Restitution: An Update on the Case Law.
Contact information
For more information, or to enquire about the concepts, methods or data quality of this release, contact us (toll-free 1-800-263-1136; 514-283-8300; infostats@statcan.gc.ca) or Media Relations (statcan.mediahotline-ligneinfomedias.statcan@statcan.gc.ca).
- Date modified: