Adult Criminal Court Statistics, 2006/2007

View the most recent version.

by Michael Marth

Cases disposed in adult criminal court
Characteristics of persons appearing in court
Case processing
Overview of case outcomes
Sentencing patterns
Superior court statistics, selected provinces and territories, 2006/2007
Trends
Methodology
Notes

Cases disposed in adult criminal court

In 2006/2007, adult criminal courts in Canada processed 372,084 cases involving 1,079,062 charges. The number of cases processed was virtually unchanged from the previous year.

Most cases (88%) had a Criminal Code charge as the most serious offence in the case.¹ Crimes against the person accounted for 25%, and crimes against property accounted for a further 24% of the total number of cases (Table 1). Administration of justice offences constituted 17% of all cases, while Criminal Code traffic comprised 14% of total cases. Other Criminal Code (which includes weapons offences and disturbing the peace offences, among others) represented 8% of all cases.

In 2006/2007, the most frequently occurring cases were impaired driving (11%) and common assault (11%).² Theft represented 10% of all cases, followed by failure to comply with a court order (7%), breach of probation (7%) and major assault (5%) (Chart 1). Taken together, all forms of sexual assault and other sexual offences accounted for less than 2% of the caseload in adult criminal courts. Homicide and attempted murder together accounted for approximately 0.2% of total cases (Table 1).

Chart 1
Ten most frequent offences heard in adult criminal court, Canada, 2006/2007

Note: Coverage for Adult Criminal Court Survey data as of 2006/2007 is estimated at 98% of national adult criminal court caseload.
Source: Statistics Canada, Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics, Adult Criminal Court Survey.

Characteristics of persons appearing in court

Of all adult criminal court cases, 78% involved a male accused, while 16% involved a female accused. The sex of the accused was not recorded in 6% of the cases. The remaining cases (less than 1%) involved a company.

Offences for which males had the highest involvement included sexual assault (91%), unlawfully at large (86%) and break and enter (85%). The highest representation of females was found in cases of prostitution (33%), theft (29%), and fraud (28%).

Younger adults were over-represented in court when compared to the age distribution of the adult population.³ In 2006/2007, '18-to 24-year-olds' comprised 12% of the adult population,⁴ but accounted for 31% of all cases in adult criminal court.⁵ Similarly, persons 25 to 34 years of age accounted for 18% of the adult population and 27% of the total cases disposed in adult criminal court. (Table 2). This is consistent with police-reported statistics where rates of persons accused of violent and property offences peak among older teens and young adults and generally decline after age 25. However, for some offence types the peak age occurs later. Offences where the accused was 35 years of age or older in the majority of cases include sexual assault, uttering threats, criminal harassment, prostitution and impaired driving.

Case processing

An accused's right to be brought to trial in a timely manner is a fundamental principle within the Canadian criminal justice system, which was reaffirmed with the 1990 Supreme Court decision in R. v. Askov.⁶

Preparations for each case commence in the court registry with the scheduling of the first court appearance, and continue with further co-ordination of judicial resources throughout the criminal court process. There are a variety of factors, many of which are not under the direct control of the courts, which affect both case management and processing. Such factors include: the volume of cases being processed by a court; the complexity of cases; the types of offences being prosecuted; issues related to the co-ordination and availability of various participants within the criminal justice process; lawyers' decisions on the most appropriate course of action for their clients; and accused failing to appear in court.

Overall, the average (or mean)⁷ elapsed time from first to last court appearance was 237 days in 2006/2007. Elapsed times varied considerably among jurisdictions. Average elapsed times were longest in Quebec (294 days), Alberta (270 days) and Ontario (232 days) (Table 3). The longer average elapsed time in Quebec may be due in part to the absence of data from Quebec's municipal courts, which hear relatively less serious Criminal Code offences. Jurisdictions with the shortest average processing times included Prince Edward Island and the Northwest Territories where cases were completed in an average of 62 days and 67 days, respectively.

The elapsed time was greater than 8 months and less than or equal to 12 months for 12% of cases, and more than one year in 14% of cases.

Some offences take longer to resolve than others. In 2006/ 2007, homicide had the longest average elapsed time (451 days). Sexual assault and other sexual offences (such as sexual interference and sexual exploitation) had an average elapsed time of 368 and 371 days, respectively, and fraud had an average elapsed time of 377 days. The shortest average elapsed time occurred for the offence of breach of probation (145 days).

Multiple-charge cases, which are often more serious, accounted for 6- in- 10 cases in 2006/2007. About one-quarter (28%) of all cases in 2006/2007 involved two charges and 32% had three or more charges. The average elapsed time for multiple-charge cases was 269 days, versus 187 days for single-charge cases.

Bench warrants increased case elapsed time

Bench warrants (i.e., arrest warrants) are usually issued when an individual fails to attend court, creating a situation where the court is unable to proceed with the case. Because it can often take a considerable amount of time to find and re-apprehend the accused, such cases can experience extensive processing delays.

In 2006/2007, 14% of completed cases had a bench warrant. During the reference year, cases with a bench warrant had a mean processing time of 338 days, compared to 219 days for cases without a bench warrant.

Jurisdictions with the highest percentage of cases having a bench warrant were Alberta (27%), British Columbia (23%) and Quebec (18%). However, average case elapsed times in British Columbia were shorter than in Ontario, where just 6% of cases had a bench warrant. There are additional factors that account for differences in average case elapsed time across jurisdictions, among them, the distribution of offences (more serious offences may take longer) and availability of court resources.⁸

Overview of case outcomes

A majority of cases had at least one finding of guilt

The accused was found guilty in about two-thirds (65%) of cases disposed in adult criminal court in 2006/2007 (Chart 2).⁹ In about one-third (30%) of cases, the most serious offence was resolved by being stayed or withdrawn, 4% of the cases resulted in the acquittal¹⁰ of the accused, and 2% had other decisions (Text box 1).

Overall, Criminal Code traffic offences had the highest percentage of guilty cases (79%) in 2006/2007, followed by administration of justice offences (71%) and crimes against property (66%) (Chart 3).¹¹

For crimes against the person, there was considerable variability in the percentage of cases resulting in a guilty finding, from 19% for attempted murder to 69% for robbery (Chart 4).

In contrast, there was notable uniformity for crimes against property cases, ranging from 60% for possession of stolen property to 72% for break and enter (Chart 5).

Chart 2
Adult court processing of federal statute cases in provincial and selected superior courts, Canada, 2006/2007

Notes: Found guilty decisions include absolute and conditional discharges. Stay/withdrawn includes cases stayed, withdrawn, dismissed and discharges at preliminary inquiry. Other decisions include final decisions of found not criminally responsible, waived in province/territory, and waived out of province/territory. This category also includes decisions where a conviction was not recorded, the court accepted a special plea, cases which raised Charter arguments or cases where the accused was found unfit to stand trial. The sentence was not known in less than 1% of convicted cases in 2006/2007. Conditional sentencing data was not collected in Quebec for 2006/2007, resulting in an undercount of conditional sentences. Coverage for Adult Criminal Court Survey data as of 2006/2007 is estimated at 98% of national adult criminal court caseload.
Source: Statistics Canada, Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics, Adult Criminal Court Survey.

Overall, the percentage of guilty cases was highest in New Brunswick (80%) and Newfoundland and Labrador (77%), and lowest in Ontario (59%), Manitoba (62%) and Yukon (63%) (Table 4).

There are several possible factors that influence variations among jurisdictions. First, the use of diversion programs and alternative measures affects the number and types of cases that proceed to court. Secondly, the use of stays and withdrawals, including court-sponsored diversion programs will have an impact on the percentage of cases in which a finding of guilt is recorded. For example, 39% of cases were stayed or withdrawn in Ontario compared with 16% in New Brunswick. Thirdly, the use of pre-charge screening by the Crown, which occurs in New Brunswick, Quebec and British Columbia, may also affect the percentage of guilty findings through increased vetting of charges. Finally, the proportion of multiple-charge cases may influence the percentage of guilty cases. For instance, in 2006/2007 the percentage of cases found guilty for multiple charge cases was 75% compared to 50% for single charge cases.

Chart 3
Cases found guilty, Canada, 2006/2007

Notes: Found guilty cases include absolute and conditional discharges. Coverage for Adult Criminal Court Survey data as of 2006/2007 is estimated at 98% of national adult criminal court caseload.
Source: Statistics Canada, Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics, Adult Criminal Court Survey.

Chart 4
Cases found guilty with a crime against the person as the most serious offence in the case, Canada, 2006/2007

Notes: Found guilty cases include absolute and conditional discharges. Coverage for Adult Criminal Court Survey data as of 2006/2007 is estimated at 98% of caseload.
Source: Statistics Canada, Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics, Adult Criminal Court Survey.

Chart 5
Cases found guilty with a crime against property as the most serious offence in the case, Canada, 2006/2007

Notes: Found guilty cases include absolute and conditional discharges. Coverage for Adult Criminal Court Survey data as of 2006/2007 is estimated at 98% of adult criminal caseload.
Source: Statistics Canada, Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics, Adult Criminal Court Survey.

Sentencing patterns

At sentencing, the court will seek to impose a sentence that reflects the principles of the sentencing process, as outlined by section 718 of the Criminal Code (Text box 2).

In 2006/2007, probation was the most frequent sentence, imposed in 43% of all guilty cases. This is not surprising as probation is mandatory in cases where the accused is given a conditional discharge or a suspended sentence. Prison was imposed in 34% of cases and fines in 30% of all cases.¹⁴ A conditional sentence was given in 4% of cases while restitution was given in 3% of guilty cases.¹⁵ (Table 5)

Looking more closely at crimes against the person it was found that 31% of cases where the accused was found guilty they received a sentence of imprisonment. One factor to be considered when examining the use of incarceration in this category is that common assault – the least serious form of assault (level 1) with a relatively low use of incarceration (16%) – represented a large proportion (45%) of guilty cases in the crimes against the person category. When common assault is removed, the remainder of the crimes against the person category has a higher use of incarceration (44%).

Concerning crimes against property, offenders were sentenced to prison in 41% of guilty cases. Persons committing these offences tend to have longer criminal histories, and after the seriousness of the crime, an offender's criminal history is one of the most important factors considered by the court when determining the sanction to be imposed.¹⁶ Prison was frequently used as a sanction for guilty cases in several crimes against property offences. For example, 61% of guilty break and enter cases, 50% of possession of stolen property cases, and more than a third (40%) of theft and fraud (36%) cases resulted in a prison sentence.

Half of guilty cases (48%) for administration of justice offences were sentenced to prison. This category is dominated by offences where the accused did not comply with the orders of the court (e.g., breach of probation, and failure to comply with a court order).

Use of imprisonment varied considerably across the country

The proportion of cases sentenced to prison varies across the country. In 2006/2007, the highest rate of incarceration was in Prince Edward Island, where 55% of guilty cases resulted in a term of imprisonment, while the lowest rates of incarceration were in Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Saskatchewan where prison was imposed in about one-quarter of cases (Chart 6).

Chart 6
Cases sentenced to prison for the most serious offence in the case, Canada, 2006/2007

Notes: Information from Quebec's municipal courts (which account for approximately 20% of federal statute charges in that province) are not yet collected. Coverage for Adult Criminal Court Survey data as of 2006/2007 is estimated at 98% of adult criminal court caseload.
Source: Statistics Canada, Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics, Adult Criminal Court Survey.

This variation in the use of incarceration reflects the influence of several factors. First, the mix of offences being sentenced can vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. If a particular jurisdiction has a higher than average percentage of the more serious crimes, it may also have a higher than average overall percentage of cases being sent to prison.

Second, courts in different parts of the country may use incarceration in different ways. In Prince Edward Island, for example, offenders are frequently sent to prison for their first impaired driving offence.¹⁷ Since this offence category accounts for 30% of guilty cases in the province, the overall proportion of cases sentenced to prison in Prince Edward Island will be higher than the national average. Of all guilty impaired driving cases in Prince Edward Island, 85% resulted in incarceration. This is by far the highest in Canada followed by Newfoundland and Labrador at 32%. The lowest rate of incarceration for guilty cases of impaired driving occurred in British Columbia where 4% were incarcerated.

Most terms of imprisonment are relatively short

Nationally, over half (55%) of all custodial sentences imposed in 2006/2007 were one month or less, while an additional one-third (31%) were for periods from greater than one month up to six months.¹⁸ ,¹⁹ Custodial sentences of greater than six months but less than two years were imposed in 10% of guilty cases with prison, and 4% were sentenced to custody for two years or more (Chart 7).²⁰

Probation more likely for crimes against the person

In 2006/2007, crimes against the person were most likely to include a term of probation (Table 5). Three-quarters (73%) of guilty cases in this category received probation, compared to 54% of offenders guilty of a crime against property. It should be noted that a substantial proportion of cases involving crimes against the person also received a term of imprisonment along with a probation order. Of the 35,126 guilty crimes against the person cases that received probation in 2006/2007, 31% also received a prison sentence.

In 2006/2007, the most common probation term length was greater than six months to one year (51% of guilty cases with probation) (Chart 8).²¹ One-third (31%) of cases were greater than one year to two years in length. (The statutory limit on a term of probation is three years.)

Fines most often seen for traffic offences

As indicated previously, one-third (30%) of guilty cases were given a fine, of which the mean amount was $758 (Table 5). Guilty cases where a fine was most frequently imposed were impaired driving (86%), drug possession (50%), other Criminal Code traffic (40%), disturbing the peace (36%), and residual federal statutes (61%) such as the Income Tax Act.

Superior court statistics, selected provinces and territories, 2006/2007

Superior courts hear indictable offences (i.e. more serious), and are the only courts with jurisdiction to try first and second degree murder charges, which (along with infanticide and manslaughter) account for 5% of the superior court caseload. For charges other than the most serious indictable offences,²² the accused can elect the mode of trial.²³

In 2006/2007, 1,402 cases (1%) were completed in superior court in seven jurisdictions.²⁴ The most common cases were crimes against the person (39% of superior court cases), followed by other federal statute (35%) and crimes against property (12%).

Chart 7
Guilty cases by length of prison sentence, for the most serious offence in the case, Canada, 2006/2007

Notes: Due to rounding, percentages may not add to 100. Excludes 4% of cases where the length of prison sentence was unknown (3,712 cases). Coverage for Adult Criminal Court Survey data as of 2006/2007 is estimated at 98% of caseload.
Source: Statistics Canada, Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics, Adult Criminal Court Survey.

Chart 8
Guilty cases by length of probation for the most serious offence in the case, Canada, 2006/2007

Notes: Due to rounding, percentages may not add to 100. Excludes cases where the length of probation sentence was unknown (2% or 2,468 cases). Coverage for Adult Criminal Court Survey data as of 2006/2007 is estimated at 98% of caseload.
Source: Statistics Canada, Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics, Adult Criminal Court Survey.

Although superior courts had a higher proportion of crimes against the person cases than provincial court (39% and 23% respectively), superior courts did dispose of cases in almost every offence category in 2006/2007. Close to half of the homicide²⁵ cases (43%) for the seven jurisdictions were completed in superior court. Fifteen percent of attempted murder cases and 10% of sexual assault cases were completed in superior court.

On average, superior court cases take longer to process than provincial court cases. In jurisdictions reporting superior court data in 2006/2007, the mean elapsed time for cases completed in superior court (i.e. the average time from the first appearance in provincial court to the last appearance in superior court) was close to one year (349 days), compared to 221 days for cases completed in provincial court in these jurisdictions. For each offence type completed in superior court, the mean elapsed times were considerably longer in superior court than provincial court (Table 6). The complexity of cases as well as the procedures used to elect trial in superior court, scheduling a trial, and jury selection are some of the factors contributing to the longer case processing times. Although superior courts process relatively few cases, these cases slightly increased overall case processing times for the reporting jurisdictions.

Cases in superior court are less likely than cases heard in provincial court to result in a finding of guilt. In 2006/2007, just over one-half (55%) of cases completed in superior court in the reporting jurisdictions were found guilty compared to 69% in provincial court. In superior court, the accused was more likely to be acquitted compared to cases completed in provincial court (10% versus 2%, respectively).

The lower percentage of guilty cases and the higher acquittal rate in superior courts may reflect the fact that these courts hear a larger proportion of cases involving serious offences than provincial court. Serious violent offences may sometimes be more difficult to prove in court as a result of a number of factors including the number and availability of witnesses, the number of charges in the case and the complexity of evidence presented by the Crown.

Almost half (48%) of guilty cases in superior court resulted in a prison sentence, and one in five (22%) resulted in a conditional sentence in 2006/2007. Probation was a sanction in 23% of guilty cases, and 7% of cases resulted in a fine. Compared to provincial court, prison is more frequently used in superior court for offences under crimes against the person.

In 2006/2007, cases with a prison sentence in superior court had a mean sentence length of 989 days (nearly three years).²⁶ In provincial court, the mean prison sentence length was 111 days. For all offence groups, the mean and median prison sentence lengths were considerably higher in superior court than provincial court (Table 7). Again this may reflect the fact that superior courts hear a larger proportion of cases involving more serious offences.

Trends

According to the ten jurisdictions²⁷ who have consistently reported to the survey between 2002/2003 and 2006/2007, the number of adult criminal court cases processed in 2006/2007 increased slightly to 353,279, up less than 1% over the previous year. The longer-term trend (over the last decade) has been downward. In fact, the number of cases disposed in 2006/2007 represents a 7% decrease over the number of cases completed in 2002/2003 (Table 8).

This downward trend generally corresponds to the pattern in police-recorded crime statistics reported to the Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Survey.²⁸ From 2002 to 2006, there was a 3% drop in the rate of adults charged. More evident is the 16% decline in the rate of adults charged from 1996 to 2005.

Proportions of caseload for all offence groups have remained quite stable over the period.

Cases are becoming more complex

Adult criminal court cases have become more complex over the last decade. Multiple-charge cases represented 60% of the caseload in 2006/2007, as they have in the two previous fiscal years. In 2002/2003, multiple-charge cases represented 57% of the caseload.

In 2006/2007, the average number of appearances per case was 9.6, up from 9.1 in the previous year. Five years earlier, the figure was 7.9. This suggests that the demand placed on court resources has increased over time, even though the number of completed cases has remained fairly stable.

Case elapsed times continue their long term trend toward increased duration. Average elapsed times have exceeded 7 months (210 days) in the past four years. Overall, the average case elapsed time increased from 195 days in 2002/2003 to 238 days in 2006/2007.²⁹ The mean processing time for the least complex cases, those with a single charge, increased from 154 to 189 days over the same period, while the processing time for multiple-charge cases increased from 225 to 270 days. While the differential between elapsed times for single- and multiple-charge cases has remained fairly steady over the five years, factors other than number of charges in the case may have an impact on case processing time. These factors include, among others, the seriousness of offences in the case, preliminary inquiry, the type of plea and whether the accused failed to appear in court at some point in time during the case.³⁰

Use of both imprisonment and probation have remained stable

At 34%, the proportion of guilty cases sentenced to prison in 2006/2007 was unchanged from the previous year. The proportion has not varied much over time; it was only slightly higher in 2006/2007 than it was five years earlier (32%). Of guilty drug trafficking cases, the percentage of cases where prison was imposed increased from 42% to 48% over the same period, while the percentage of cases that received a conditional sentence dropped from 31% to 28%.

In 2006/2007, the mean prison sentence length was 124 days, the same as five years earlier (Table 9). However, these figures conceal changes in mean prison sentence lengths for some offences. The mean prison sentence length for other sexual offences (mostly sexual offences against children) rose from 468 days in 2002/2003 to 526 days in 2006/2007. Drug trafficking offences also had an increase in mean prison sentence length, from 220 days in 2002/2003 to 280 days in 2006/2007.

Chart 9
Average elapsed time from first to last appearance in adult criminal court, ten provinces and territories in Canada, 2002/2003 to 2006/2007

Notes: This trend analysis table does not include data from Manitoba, Northwest Territories, and Nunavut. Coverage for Adult Criminal Court Survey data for five year trend analysis (ten jurisdictions) is estimated at 90%.
Source: Statistics Canada, Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics, Adult Criminal Court Survey.

The proportion of cases receiving probation as a sanction has been stable at 45% over the past five years. The mean length of probation orders generally has been stable around 450 days over the past five years (Table 10).

Imposition of fine sentences have moderately decreased

Since the mid-1990s, the imposition of fine sentences has been decreasing. In 2006/2007, 31% of guilty cases were given a fine, down from 35% in 2002/2003. The mean amount of fine, which was $747 in 2002/2003, increased to $827 in 2005/2006, before dropping back down to $759 in 2006/2007 (Table 11).³¹

Several factors may be responsible for the relative decreasing imposition of fines. Bill C-41 (in force September, 1996) amended the Criminal Code to direct judges to impose fines only after ascertaining if the offender has the ability to pay [CCC s. 734(2)]. Over the longer term, this amendment may have encouraged greater use of probation in lieu of fines for offenders that would otherwise be at risk of incarceration due to default of fine payment. Additionally, some offences (i.e., Criminal Code traffic) are more likely to result in fines than others, so changes over time in the caseload composition (i.e., fewer Criminal Code traffic cases) will tend to affect the proportion of all guilty cases receiving fines. There was a one percentage point drop in Criminal Code traffic cases over the five year reference period.

Overall, the adult criminal court data have remained quite stable over time. However, it is important to note that despite a long-term decline in the number of charges laid by police, those cases that appeared in court were more complex, required more appearances and took longer to dispose of. These factors likely played a signifi cant role in the decline in the number of cases being completed in adult criminal courts over the last several years.

Methodology

This product is based on case characteristics data from the Integrated Criminal Court Survey (ICCS) and Adult Criminal Court Survey (ACCS). Data on federal statute charges are collected by the Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics (CCJS) in collaboration with provincial and territorial government departments responsible for adult criminal courts. The surveys consist of a census of Criminal Code and other federal statute charges dealt with in adult criminal courts. The ICCS/ACCS represent approximately 98% of the national adult criminal court caseload.

The individuals involved are persons 18 years or older at the time of the offence, companies, as well as youth who have been transferred to adult criminal court.³²

Coverage

In 2006/2007, criminal courts in all provinces and territories reported provincial court data to the ICCS/ACCS. In addition, all jurisdictions (with the exception of Quebec, Ontario, Manitoba and Saskatchewan) reported superior court data to the survey.

Some limitations on coverage of the surveys should be noted. Data from the Northwest Territories are not available for 2002/2003 or 2003/2004. Manitoba began reporting to the survey in 2005/2006. Information from Quebec's municipal courts (which account for approximately one-quarter of Criminal Code charges in that province) is not yet collected.

The absence of data from four superior court jurisdictions (noted above) may result in a slight underestimation of the severity of sentences imposed across Canada because some of the most serious cases, which are likely to result in the most severe sanctions, are processed in superior courts. There may also be slight underestimation of case elapsed times across Canada because more serious cases involve a defence election and may involve a preliminary inquiry or jury selection, and therefore may require more appearances and take more time to complete.

Counting procedures

The Integrated Criminal Court Survey (ICCS) has a new data collection strategy, designed to integrate the collection of adult and youth court data, and includes a new data model. Data contained in this report represent the adult criminal court portion of that survey.

The primary unit of analysis is the “person-case”. The concept of a case has changed from previous releases to more closely reflect court processing. The new defi nition combines all charges against the same person having overlapping court dates into a single case. The previous definition combined all charges against the same person disposed of in court on the same day into a case. This tended to undercount the number of charges in a case, overcount the number of cases and underestimate the length of time required to process a case through court because not all charges are necessarily disposed of on the same day.

The impact of this change is noticeable in the compression of case counts as well as conviction rates for some jurisdictions, where certain administrative practices (e.g., use of stays, relays, withdrawals, transfers, etc.) may have resulted in multiple cases against an accused using the previous end-date definition.

Since all data (from 1994/1995 to 2006/2007) obtained through the ICCS and ACCS have been processed using the new case definition, data from this report should not be compared with data released prior to October 2007.

Most serious offence and decision rules

When a case has more than one charge, it is necessary to decide which charge will be used to represent the case. In such multiple-charge cases, the “most serious decision” rule is applied. Decisions are ranked from the most to the least serious as follows: 1) guilty, 2) guilty of a lesser offence, 3) acquitted, 4) stay of proceeding, 5) withdrawn, dismissed and discharged 6) not criminally responsible 7) other, 8) transfer of court jurisdiction.

In cases where two or more offences have resulted in the same decision (e.g., guilty), the “most serious offence” rule is applied. All charges are ranked according to an offence seriousness scale, which is based on the average length of prison sentence imposed on guilty charges between 1999/2000 and 2003/2004. If two charges are tied according to this criterion, information about the sentence type (e.g., prison, probation, and fine) is considered. If a tie still exists, the magnitude of the sentence is considered.

Factors influencing the number of charges laid

Charging policies vary by province and territory. In New Brunswick, Quebec and British Columbia, for example, the police must obtain the approval of the Crown prosecutor before a charge is laid. In other provinces and territories, the police have exclusive responsibility for the laying of a charge. This variability may affect the number and nature of charges laid across the country.

Notes

1. For analytical purposes, when a case has more than one charge, it is necessary to decide which charge will be used to represent the case. If the case includes a finding of guilt, that charge will always be considered the most serious. The most serious offence in a case with multiple guilty findings is determined based on the type of offence and the sentences imposed. See methodology section for more information on ICCS/ACCS counting procedures and most serious offence rules.
2. There are three levels of assault in the Criminal Code. Common assault (Assault Level 1, s. 266) is the least serious of the three levels. A ‘common' assault has been committed when an individual intentionally applies force or threatens to apply force to another person, without that person's consent. Major assault is an offence category that includes the higher levels of assault in the Criminal Code: assault with a weapon (Assault Level II, s. 267), aggravated assault (Assault Level III, s. 268), and other assaults (e.g. assaulting a police officer, and unlawfully causing bodily harm).
3. Age represents the offender's age in the year the offence was alleged to have been committed.
4. Population estimates as of July 2006 for adults for Canada.
5. Excludes cases where age of the accused was unknown and cases against companies.
6. 59 C.C.C. (3d) 449. In this decision, the Supreme Court affirmed the right of an accused to be brought to trial without excessive delay. Further clarification of the issue was provided by R. v. Morin (1992) 71 C.C.C. (3d) 193 (S.C.C.). The judgement in Morin suggested that an eight to ten month delay was tolerable between charges being laid and the subsequent trial in provincial court.
7. The mean is the average value of all the data in the dataset.
8. For more information on factors affecting case elapsed time, see J. Pereira and C. Grimes, “Case processing in criminal courts, 1999/2000.” Juristat. Statistics Canada Catalogue no. 85-002-XPE. Vol. 22, no. 1. Ottawa.
9. Includes absolute and conditional discharges. After a guilty decision is rendered, the court may discharge the accused absolutely or on conditions specified in a probation order (Criminal Code of Canada. s.730).
10. In Newfoundland and Labrador, the terms ‘acquittal' and ‘dismissed' are used interchangeably. This results in an undercounting of acquittals from that jurisdiction. In some jurisdictions, the number of acquittals may be over-reported due to administrative practices.
11. First and second degree murder cases are under the exclusive jurisdiction of superior courts. In jurisdictions not reporting superior courts data, the final decisions in these cases will be a transfer to another court level. This leads to an under-estimate of the percentage of such cases resulting in the accused being found guilty.
12. See B. Bélanger. 2001. “Sentencing in adult criminal courts, 1999/2000.” Juristat. Statistics Canada Catalogue no. 85-002-XPE. Vol. 21, no. 10. Ottawa.
13. For more information on sentencing options and the nature of the 1996 sentencing reforms see J. Roberts and D. Cole (eds). 1999. Making Sense of Sentencing. Toronto: University of Toronto Press
14. Cases can have more than one sentence. Therefore, sanctions are not mutually exclusive and will not add to 100%.
15. In 2006/2007, conditional sentencing data were not available for Quebec.
16. See M. Thomas, H. Hurley, and C. Grimes. 2002. “Pilot analysis of recidivism among convicted youth and young adults – 1999/2000.” Juristat. Statistics Canada Catalogue no. 85-002-XIE. Vol. 22, no. 9. Ottawa.
17. The minimum sentence for a first offence of impaired driving is a fine of not less than $600 (C.C.C. s. 255(1) (a) (i)).
18. Excludes cases with a prison sentence, but unknown prison length.
19. Time in custody prior to sentencing is sometimes taken into consideration when imposing a sentence. The length of time in custody prior to sentencing and the extent to which it influences the sanction imposed are not available from the ACCS.
20. Percentages do not add to 100 due to rounding.
21. Excludes cases where the length of probation was unknown.
22. Superior court has absolute jurisdiction over the indictable offences listed in section 469 of the Criminal Code. These offences include murder, treason, and intimidating Parliament, among others. Provincial court has absolute jurisdiction over the offences listed in C.C.C. s. 553, which includes failure to comply with probation order, driving while disqualified, theft (other than theft of cattle), etc. All other indictable offences are eligible for election to superior court by the accused.
23. It may also be possible for superior courts to hear summary offences when they have been transferred due to the election of an indictable offence in the same case.
24. The analysis of superior court data covers seven jurisdictions and excludes Prince Edward Island, Quebec, Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Nunavut. Quebec, Ontario, Manitoba and Saskatchewan currently do not report superior court data to the ICCS/ACCS. Nunavut has a single level trial court. Prince Edward Island superior court data do not include information on the number of appearances and elapsed time from first to last case appearance for cases completed in superior court. As a result, Prince Edward Island data were not included in the analysis.
25. Homicide includes murder (1st and 2nd degree), infanticide, and manslaughter.
26. Excludes cases with a prison sentence, but unknown prison length.
27. Trend analysis in this Juristat covers the five year period from 2002/2003 to 2006/2007 and includes the ten jurisdictions that have participated in the survey all five years: Newfoundland and Labrador, Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Quebec, Ontario, Saskatchewan, Alberta, British Columbia and Yukon. Survey coverage for this period is approximately 90% of the national adult criminal court caseload.
28. See W. Silver 2007. “Crime statistics in Canada, 2006.” Juristat. Statistics Canada Catalogue no. 85-002-XIE. Vol. 27, no. 5. Ottawa.
29. The 2006/2007 mean case elapsed time for the ten jurisdictions may vary from those in Table 3 because Table 3 includes Manitoba, Northwest Territories and Nunavut, for which long-term trend information is not available from the ACCS.
30. See J. Pereira and C. Grimes. 2002. “Case processing in Criminal Courts – 1999/2000.” Juristat. Statistics Canada Catalogue no. 85-002-XIE. Vol. 22, no. 1. Ottawa.
31. Figures represent fine amounts in current dollars.
32. Under the Young Offenders Act (repealed in 2003), it was possible for a youth to be tried as an adult. Such matters were transferred to adult criminal court. Under the Youth Criminal Justice Act (April 2003), youth may be subject to adult sentencing but remain in youth court.