Table 7
Characteristics of violent victimization incidents, by territory, 2014

Table 7
Characteristics of violent victimization incidents, by territory, 2014
Table summary
This table displays the results of Characteristics of violent victimization incidents. The information is grouped by Characteristics (appearing as row headers), Yukon, Northwest Territories, Nunavut and All territories, calculated using percent units of measure (appearing as column headers).
Characteristics Yukon Northwest Territories Nunavut All territoriesNote †
percent
Location of the incident  
Private residence Note F: too unreliable to be published 35Note E: Use with caution 29Note E: Use with caution 31
Commercial or institutional establishment or public place 67 59 70 65
Other Note F: too unreliable to be published Note F: too unreliable to be published Note F: too unreliable to be published Note F: too unreliable to be published
Location of the incident is the victim's place of workNote 1  
Yes Note F: too unreliable to be published Note F: too unreliable to be published Note F: too unreliable to be published 20Note E: Use with caution
No 70 78 74 74
Don't know/refusal Note F: too unreliable to be published Note F: too unreliable to be published Note F: too unreliable to be published Note F: too unreliable to be published
Sex of offenderNote 2  
Male 68Note E: Use with caution 81 80 77
Female Note F: too unreliable to be published Note F: too unreliable to be published Note F: too unreliable to be published 23Note E: Use with caution
Age of offenderNote 2  
Under 25 years old Note F: too unreliable to be published Note F: too unreliable to be published Note F: too unreliable to be published 33Note E: Use with caution
25 to 44 Note F: too unreliable to be published 53 47Note E: Use with caution 47
45 years or older Note F: too unreliable to be published Note F: too unreliable to be published Note F: too unreliable to be published 17Note E: Use with caution
Relationship of offender to the victimNote 3  
Stranger Note F: too unreliable to be published 50 Note F: too unreliable to be published 41Note E: Use with caution
Known to victim 64 50Note E: Use with caution 65 59
Don't know/refusal Note F: too unreliable to be published Note F: too unreliable to be published Note F: too unreliable to be published Note F: too unreliable to be published
Number of offenders  
One 87 84 85 85
Two or more Note F: too unreliable to be published Note F: too unreliable to be published Note F: too unreliable to be published Note F: too unreliable to be published
Incident related to the offender's alcohol or drug use  
Yes 63 72 54Note E: Use with caution 63
No Note F: too unreliable to be published Note F: too unreliable to be published Note F: too unreliable to be published 26Note E: Use with caution
Don't know/refusal Note F: too unreliable to be published Note F: too unreliable to be published Note F: too unreliable to be published Note F: too unreliable to be published
Presence of a weapon  
Yes Note F: too unreliable to be published Note F: too unreliable to be published Note F: too unreliable to be published 27Note E: Use with caution
No 71 67 70 69
Caused injuries  
Yes Note F: too unreliable to be published Note F: too unreliable to be published Note F: too unreliable to be published 16Note E: Use with caution
No 93Note ** 86 73Note ** 84
Victim reports effects consistent with post-traumatic stress disorder symptomsNote 4  
Yes Note F: too unreliable to be published Note F: too unreliable to be published Note F: too unreliable to be published Note F: too unreliable to be published
No 91 86 86 88
E use with caution
F too unreliable to be published
Note **

significantly different from reference category (p < 0.05)

Return to note ** referrer

Note †

reference category

Return to note † referrer

Note 1.

Due to an error in the survey application, victims who reported the location of the incident as “Other” were not asked the place of work question. Approximately one-third of these incidents were recoded based on other information provided. The proportions on place of work presented in this table were calculated solely for incidents for which there was a valid response.

Return to note 1 referrer

Note 2.

Excludes incidents for which there was more than one offender.

Return to note 2 referrer

Note 3.

Includes incidents for which the victim identified the number of offenders. If there was more than one offender, the relationship is that of the offender with the closest relationship to the victim.

Return to note 3 referrer

Note 4.

Based on the Primary Care Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder Screen. Includes people who reported at least three of the four symptoms evaluated.

Return to note 4 referrer

Note: Excludes incidents of sexual assault and physical assault between spouses. The answers “Don't know” and “Refusal” are included in the calculation of the percentages, but may not appear in the table when they represent less than 5% of responses. Because of the inclusion of the answers “Don’t know” and “Refusal” and of rounding, percentages may not add up to 100.
Source: Statistics Canada, General Social Survey, 2014.
Date modified: