Court outcomes associated with the gender-related homicide of women and girls in Canada, 2009/2010 to 2020/2021

While men and boys experience higher rates of homicide in Canada (David & Jaffray, 2022; Sutton, 2023b), the circumstances in which women and girls are killed are quite different from homicides involving male victims. Homicides of women and girls are often gender-related, meaning, the violence directed towards them was perpetrated because of their sex or gender, which some have argued is due, in part, to factors related to harmful social norms, gender inequality and discrimination as well as unequal power relations (UNODC, 2022). As a result, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Violence Against Women (UN SRVAW) recommended that governments publish disaggregated data annually on femicide—or the killing of women and girls because they are women and girls—as well as information relating to the prosecution and punishment of perpetrators (ACUNS, 2017).

The term “femicide” was first used in 1976 as an alternate to the gender-neutral term “homicide” and is only more recently growing in use (Sarmiento et al., 2014). Its definition evolved over time, initially as “the murder of women by men motivated by hatred, contempt, pleasure, or a sense of ownership of women” (Caputi & Russell, 1990, p. 34) to its current form, broadly understood as the killing of women because they are women (World Health Organization, 2012). However, despite ongoing discussions, there is no agreed upon definition of femicide in a global or Canadian context (UNODC, 2018). As such, and aligned with terminology used internationally, the term gender-related homicide of women and girls is used throughout this Juristat article (see Text box 1 for definition).

The collection and dissemination of data on the prosecution and punishment of perpetrators of violent crime is crucial to identifying gaps or differential treatment in criminal justice responses to these killings and non-lethal forms of gender-related violence, which can be used to inform training programs for frontline personnel. While previous research examined court outcomes of intimate partner violence cases completed in Canadian courts (see Beaupré, 2015; Gannon & Brzozowski, 2004), this article is the first to examine court outcomes related to the most extreme form of gender-based violence.

Using a linked data file merging information contained in the Homicide Survey with the Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Survey and the Integrated Criminal Court Survey (ICCS), this Juristat article first provides a brief overview of the characteristics of gender-related homicides in Canada (for a detailed report please see Sutton, 2023a). Section 2 examines how cases of gender-related homicide of women and girls advanced through the criminal courts system over a 12-(fiscal) year period, from 2009/2010 to 2020/2021. Special attention is given to how these cases were treated at various stages of the criminal justice process and how their outcomes compared to non-gender-related cases of women and girls and to the homicides of men and boys.^Note  The final section presents data on how non-lethal incidents of gender-related violence—that is, attempted murders or aggravated assaults against a female by a male intimate partner or family member as well as aggravated sexual assaults against a female by a male regardless of relationship shared—proceeded through the courts system and whether their treatment differed from non-gender-related violent incidents.

For readability, the terms “gender-related homicides” and “non-gender-related homicides” are often used in this article, without reference to victims’ gender, but typically refer to women and girls unless otherwise specified.

This article was produced with funding support from Women and Gender Equality Canada.

Start of text box 1

End of text box 1

Section 1: Gender-related homicides of women and girls in Canada, 2011 to 2021

Recently, the Canadian Centre for Justice and Community Safety Statistics released data examining the gender-related homicides of women and girls over an 11-year period, from 2011 to 2021 (see Sutton, 2023a). Overall, the large majority (77%) of solved homicides of a woman or girl perpetrated by a male accused were classified as gender-related. That is, this group of homicides involved a female victim perpetrated by a male accused who was an intimate partner or family member of the victim, or who sexually assaulted the victim, or who killed a victim identified by police as a sex worker. In total, there were 1,125 victims of gender-related homicide perpetrated by 1,077 unique male accused.

There are certain characteristics common among victims of gender-related homicide. Specifically, the largest proportion of victims were killed at a residential location (87%), were aged 35 or older (59%), and died by stab wounds (34%). These findings typically differ from characteristics found for male and female victims of non-gender-related homicide (Table 1).

Of the 1,077 males accused of perpetrating a gender-related homicide, just under half (48%) had a criminal history known to police, most of which involved violence (33%) (Sutton, 2023a). A higher proportion of persons accused of a gender-related homicide died by suicide compared to those accused of committing a non-gender-related homicide of male or female victims (21% versus 3%).

While the above data encompasses a shorter time period and includes all cases, the findings can help situate data presented below in the larger context of gender-related homicide.

Start of text box 2

End of text box 2

Section 2: Court outcomes linked to police-reported homicide cases, 2009/2010 to 2020/2021

Between 2009 and 2021, police reported 1,271 gender-related homicide incidents in which 1,328 women and girls were killed. Police cleared about eight in ten (78%) of these incidents by laying or recommending a charge. Of these incidents, 44% were linked to at least one court charge, resulting in 440 completed court cases for analysis.^Note  In total, there were 1,171 charges laid in these cases, resulting in an average of 2.7 linked charges per case.^Note 

In contrast, there were 835 female victims killed in 809 police-reported non-gender-related homicide incidents over the same time period. Approximately two-thirds (65%) of these incidents were cleared by charge, 47% of which linked to at least one court charge, resulting in 266 cases for analysis. There were 1,129 charges laid in these cases, with an average of 4.2 linked charges per case. Meanwhile, there were 5,954 male homicide victims who were killed in 5,781 incidents. More than two-thirds (69%) were cleared by charge, 49% of which were linked to at least one court charge, resulting in 2,418 cases for analysis. A total of 8,046 charges were laid for these cases, with an average of 3.3 linked charges per case (see Figure 1).

Figure 1 start

Figure 1 end

Overall, gender-related homicides have fewer charges per court case compared with other types of homicide. Whether this is due to circumstances of the case or prosecutorial overcharging in other types of homicide—a practice whereby the Crown lays more charges for leverage in the plea bargaining process—cannot be determined.

For a case to be considered in scope, the police must have laid or recommended a homicide charge (i.e., first degree murder, second degree murder, manslaughter or infanticide) against an accused person, but a different charge could have been pursued at the court level. As such, the homicide cases included in this analysis did not necessarily proceed with a homicide charge in the criminal courts.

Murder most serious violation, according to police, in nine out of ten gender-related homicide incidents

According to police data, murder was the most serious violation in 90% of incidents of gender-related homicide (Chart 1).^Note  Just over half (51%) of these were second-degree murder and 39% were first-degree murder. In the remaining 10% of gender-related homicide incidents, manslaughter was the most serious violation. In contrast, lower proportions of incidents of non-gender-related homicide or incidents with a male victim had murder as the most serious violation (85% and 84%, respectively) and instead manslaughter was more common (15% and 16%, respectively). The difference is due largely to police laying or recommending proportionately fewer first-degree murder charges in the latter cases.

Chart 1 start

Chart 1 end

At the court level, 1,171 charges were processed within the 440 gender-related homicide cases that were linked for analysis (Table 2). Of these, close to half (46%) were homicide-related; that is, 36% of charges were for first- or second-degree murder and 10% were for manslaughter. One in five (21%) were for other violent offences (e.g., attempted murder, aggravated assault, a sexual offence) and the remaining one-third (34%) were related to property crime, other Criminal Code offences and other violations more generally. The discrepancy between police and court data is due primarily to police only being required to record the most serious charge laid or recommended against an accused whereas multiple charges, in addition to the homicide charge, can be completed in court.

Alongside an analysis of all charges processed in the criminal courts, ICCS data allows for an examination of the “most serious decision” (MSD) rendered whereby each case is represented by a single offence. The MSD first takes into account the decision handed down by the court, with guilty decisions taking priority over non-guilty decisions.^Note  In the event that multiple charges have the same decision, the MSD becomes the most serious offence.^Note  As the MSD, murder charges were comparatively less common than in police data, likely due to the proportion of such charges not having a finding of guilt, but continue to be more common among persons accused of a gender-related homicide than those charged in cases of non-gender-related homicide and the homicide of men and boys. More specifically, six in ten (60%) gender-related homicide cases had a murder charge as the MSD,^Note  followed by manslaughter (20%) and other charges (19%) (Table 3).

Research to date has found that courts in Canada and abroad (e.g., Latin America) have historically treated persons accused of an intimate partner or familial homicide differently, relative to people who commit other types of homicide, at various stages of the investigative and criminal justice process (Dawson, 2012; Dawson, 2016; Sarmiento et al., 2014; UNODC, 2018). According to these researchers, prior to and during the 1990s, the justice system was applying what has been colloquially referred to as an “intimacy discount” or a “domestic discount” to perpetrators of intimate or familial homicide (see Dawson, 2004a; Dawson, 2004b; Dawson, 2016; Rapaport, 1996). The intimacy or domestic discount is premised on the idea that persons accused of a homicide against someone with whom they share a close relationship may be perceived as lacking criminal intent due to, for example, acting on provocation or strong emotion in advance of the violent act and may be seen as less predatory than perpetrators who harm strangers (Black, 1976; Dawson, 2006; Rapaport, 1996; Richards et al., 2015). These factors can then lessen criminal justice actors’ perceptions of culpability, thereby influencing charging, conviction and sentencing practices (Dawson, 2004b). Due to a combination of factors, including public and professional education by feminist groups, attitudinal shifts and legislative changes to the Criminal Code, this disparate treatment in Canada appears to have lessened over time (Dawson, 2004b; Dawson, 2016).

Current findings provide support for a shift towards a more punitive, and less biased, criminal justice response for those accused of intimate partner and sexual violence. Specifically, of the homicide cases that successfully linked to court data, murder charges were comparatively more common for persons accused of a gender-related homicide in both police and court data than was the case for the non-gender-related homicide of women and girls and the homicide of men and boys. 

Higher proportion of accused found guilty of any charge in a gender-related homicide case, lower proportion had their charges stayed, withdrawn or dismissed

During the period of analysis, 58% of persons who were accused of committing a gender-related homicide of a woman or girl were found guilty of any charge in the case (Chart 2).^Note  This proportion is higher than what was found among persons accused of a non-gender-related homicide of a woman or girl as well as those accused in a homicide case with a male victim (50% each). While similar proportions of accused were acquitted of all charges,^Note  lower proportions of persons accused of a gender-related homicide had their charges stayed, withdrawn or dismissed (34% versus 42% and 45%, respectively).^Note 

Chart 2 start

Chart 2 end

When focusing only on outcomes related to cases where a homicide charge was pursued in court, the above pattern remains: a higher proportion of persons accused of a gender-related homicide were found guilty (62%), compared with persons accused of a non-gender-related homicide of a woman or girl (54%), or of a male victim (52%).  

Prior research has found that persons accused of an intimate partner homicide are more likely to be convicted overall than those accused of non-intimate homicides, which can be explained, in part, by the former group being more likely to plead guilty in the case (Dawson, 2004a; Dawson, 2004b). Alternatively, cases of gender-related homicide may be more likely to have a history of violence documented between the victim and accused alongside an increased likelihood of witnesses being present during the homicide (Alisic et al., 2017). Therefore, it could be that the high proportion of convictions reflect the amount of evidence entered against the accused, increasing the likelihood of a guilty plea being made and accepted by the court. The ICCS data, however, do not capture information reliably on whether the conviction resulted from a trial or plea bargain.

Since 2015/2016, a larger proportion of persons accused of a gender-related homicide guilty of at least one charge in the case

When analyzing year-over-year trends, among persons accused of a gender-related homicide, the lowest proportion of guilty findings of any charge in the case were documented in 2010/2011 (32%) and the highest in 2015/2016 (71%) (Chart 3). However, from one year to the next, the number of homicide cases will fluctuate. To account for these expected fluctuations, it is more informative to examine pooled averages to determine whether data trends exist. For instance, between 2009/2010 and 2014/2015, approximately half (52%) of those accused of a gender-related homicide were found guilty of any charge in the case, similar to, albeit slightly lower than, persons accused of a non-gender-related homicide (55%) and those accused of a homicide of a man or boy (53%). However, in the most recent time period (2015/2016 to 2020/2021) a different pattern emerges whereby 61% of persons accused of a gender-related homicide were found guilty of any charge in the case, much higher than the proportion of accused who were found guilty of a non-gender-related homicide of a woman or girl or a homicide of a male victim (each 48%).

Chart 3 start

Chart 3 end

Most of those convicted in homicide cases were sentenced to custody, regardless of gender-related status

Of all adults convicted of any charge in a case that had at least one homicide charge and where sentencing details were known,^Note  the vast majority received a custodial sentence. More specifically, 93% of persons convicted of a gender-related homicide of a woman or girl were sentenced to custody, similar to the proportion of custodial sentences given to those convicted of a non-gender-related homicide and those convicted in a homicide case with a male victim (92% each) (Chart 4).

Chart 4 start

Chart 4 end

While the above data do not reflect sentencing details for persons convicted of homicide but rather any charge in the case, the patterns persist when sentencing outcomes for homicide convictions are examined. 

Persons convicted in a case of gender-related homicide and sentenced to custody receive longest sentence on average

Of those who were found guilty of a homicide charge where the most serious sentence was custody and the length of custody was known,^Note  persons convicted in a case of gender-related homicide had an average sentence of 12.5 years remaining after credit was given for pre-trial custody. This was three years longer than those convicted of a non-gender-related homicide of a woman or girl (average 9.2 years), and double the average of custodial sentences handed down when the victim was male (6.1 years).^Note 

The above sentencing disparities across homicide types by gender-related status could be related to differences in charges laid and the most serious decision rendered by the courts as penalties vary according to the type of homicide conviction.  For example, persons accused of a gender-related homicide were more frequently charged with murder—either first- or second-degree—than the comparison groups. For adults, a first-degree murder conviction automatically results in a life sentence with parole eligibility after 25 years. Similarly, second-degree murder carries a life sentence but with parole eligibility set between 10 and 25 years. A manslaughter conviction, on the other hand, does not carry a minimum sentence unless committed with a firearm, in which a minimum four-year sentence is imposed. Here, sentence length reflects the time left to serve by an offender after being credited for time served pre-trial, calculated based on the total sentence imposed rather than parole eligibility.

When examining those convicted of murder in a gender-related homicide case, the average sentence length was 21.3 years, three and a half years longer than those convicted of murder in a case of non-gender-related homicide (average 17.8 years) and ten years longer than those convicted of murdering a man or boy (10.9 years).^Note  Persons convicted of a gender-related manslaughter received longer sentences on average than the comparison groups (7.5 years versus 5.4 years for a non-gender-related manslaughter and 5.3 years for manslaughter of a man or boy).^Note 

Start of text box 3

End of text box 3

Gender-related homicide cases take longer to complete in court

Cases of gender-related homicides took, on average, 603 calendar days to complete in court, measured by first appearance to final decision. These cases took 89 days longer, on average, to complete than non-gender-related homicides of women and girls and 103 days longer than cases involving the homicide of men and boys (Chart 5). These differences may be due to murder charges and convictions being more common in cases of gender-related homicide. Murder trials add a level of complexity in terms of evidence presented, burden of proof and time required for jury instructions and deliberations, which could collectively result in longer trial durations. Issues of complexity aside, completion time may be impacted by additional time needed for sentencing; a viable explanation with a higher proportion of guilty findings in gender-related homicide cases.

Chart 5 start

Chart 5 end

For guilty findings, substantially more time is needed to complete a case, regardless of gender-related status, again, likely due to the additional time needed for sentencing. For example, gender-related homicides took an average of 290 days longer to complete when the decision was guilty compared to a finding of not guilty. Similarly, cases of non-gender-related homicide of women and girls and cases with a male victim took longer to complete when the decision was guilty (135 and 148 days longer, respectively).

Guilty findings less common in gender-related homicides of a non-spousal family member

Like overall patterns noted among all gender-related homicides committed between 2011 and 2021, four in ten (41%) cases completed in criminal courts involved spousal relationships,^Note  followed by non-spousal family relationships (30%), non-spousal intimate partners (18%),^Note  acquaintances (8%) and strangers (3%).^Note   

Among persons accused of a gender-related homicide, two-thirds were found guilty of any charge in the case when the victim was an intimate partner. More specifically, 66% of persons accused of a gender-related homicide of a non-spousal intimate partner were found guilty of any charge in the case, and about six in ten (61%) were found guilty when the victim was a spouse (Chart 6). Similarly, 67% of those charged in the gender-related homicide of a victim with whom they shared a more distant relationship (i.e., stranger or acquaintance) were found guilty, whereas half (50%) of persons accused of a gender-related homicide were found guilty when the victim was a non-spousal family member.^Note  This last finding, however, is unique to gender-related homicides; for persons accused of a non-gender-related homicide or the homicide of a male victim, the largest proportion of those found guilty killed a non-spousal family member (65% and 60%, respectively).

Chart 6 start

Chart 6 end

Current findings further support the lessening of the “intimacy discount” in recent years in that similar proportions of guilty findings were documented for persons accused of a gender-related homicide of an intimate partner and for persons accused of a gender-related homicide of a stranger or acquaintance. In terms of sentence length, those who killed non-spousal intimate partners had, on average, the longest time remaining on their sentence (14.2 years) after being credited with time served for pre-trial custody, followed by those who killed an acquaintance or stranger (13.0 years) or spouse (11.2 years). Those convicted of a gender-related homicide of a non-spousal family member had the least amount of time left on their sentence (8.8 years).

Similar proportion of guilty findings in gender-related homicide cases involving Indigenous and non-Indigenous victims

In parallel with the proportion of all victims of gender-related homicide killed between 2011 and 2021 (see Sutton, 2023a), of the gender-related homicides completed in criminal courts, just over one in five (22%) victims were Indigenous  (First Nations, Métis and Inuit) despite their comprising 5% of the female population in 2021 (Statistics Canada, 2022) (Table 4). When comparing court outcomes of gender-related homicides involving Indigenous victims compared with non-Indigenous victims, similar proportions of accused were found guilty of any charge in the case (57% and 59%, respectively). See Burczycka and Cotter (2023) for a full analysis of court outcomes of homicides involving Indigenous victims.

Fewer guilty findings in gender-related homicide cases involving multiple accused

The majority of gender-related homicide cases dealt with in the criminal courts involved a single victim and single accused (91% each), similar proportions of which resulted in a guilty finding (57% and 60%, respectively) (Table 5). While the homicide of multiple victims in a single incident marginally increased the proportion of accused found guilty (from 57% to 61%), the participation of multiple accused did appear to have the opposite effect. Specifically, 37% of gender-related homicide cases involving two accused resulted in a finding of guilt for any charge in the case, a percentage that decreased to 29% with the participation of three or more accused. This runs contrary to prior research which found, while controlling for other factors, the presence of multiple accused increases the likelihood of being found guilty in a homicide case at trial, regardless of victim gender or relationship shared (Dawson, 2004b). 

Gender-related homicides less often involve a related offence, according to police

In the Homicide Survey, when there is a direct and immediate connection between a related offence and the homicide incident, police are required to record the most serious one. For gender-related homicides, about four in ten (42%) had a related offence (Table 5). Of these, 79% involved a violent offence, most notably offences related to assault and sexual assault. A larger proportion of non-gender-related homicide cases of women and girls and those involving a male victim had a related offence (54% and 56%, respectively). Of these cases, the majority also involved a related violent offence (60% and 78%, respectively), most commonly the offences of assault and robbery. 

By definition, at least some gender-related homicides must involve a related offence (i.e., sexual assault). The fact that such homicides have fewer associated offences than the comparison groups imply that other types of gender-related homicides (e.g., those occurring between intimates and family members) are much less likely to involve an associated offence recorded by police.

More than half of those charged in relation to a gender-related homicide in court have a previous conviction

Based on police-reported data, the vast majority (93%) of persons accused of a gender-related homicide were not involved in illegal activities at the time of the homicide,^Note  however, a greater proportion of persons involved in such activities were found guilty of any charge in the homicide case compared to those who were not (63% versus 58%) (Table 6).

Similarly, more than half (53%) of all persons accused of a gender-related homicide had a previous criminal record, of which 70% included at least one violent offence, and a higher proportion of these accused were found guilty of any charge in the case compared to those without a record (64% versus 51% of accused without a prior conviction). Among persons accused of a non-gender-related homicide, more than half (54%) had a criminal record, but a smaller proportion (51%) of which were found guilty of any charge in the case. For persons accused of a homicide with a male victim, more than two-thirds (70%) had a criminal record, 49% of which were found guilty of any charge.

More than three-quarters of persons charged in a gender-related homicide case are aged 25 and older

Among all persons accused of a gender-related homicide that was linked to at least one court charge, 77% were aged 25 and older (Table 6). In contrast, about six in ten (59%) persons accused of a non-gender-related homicide of a woman or girl and a slightly smaller proportion (56%) of those accused of a homicide of a man or boy were similarly aged.

Nearly two-thirds of persons found guilty in a gender-related homicide case consumed alcohol, drugs or an intoxicating substance prior to the incident

Half (51%) of those charged in a gender-related homicide had consumed alcohol, drugs or an intoxicating substance prior to committing the homicide (Table 6). This was similar to the proportion of persons charged in a non-gender-related homicide (46%) and to those accused of a homicide of a male victim (52%) who were recorded as having consumed substances.  

Differences emerge between the three groups when it came to the “unknown” category. Specifically, information on substance use was known for approximately eight in ten (79%) persons charged with a gender-related homicide, nearly three quarters (73%) of those charged with a non-gender-related homicide of a woman or girl and more than two-thirds (68%) of those charged with the homicide of a male victim.

Nearly two-thirds (64%) of persons accused of a gender-related homicide who had consumed an intoxicating substance were found guilty of any charge in the case. In comparison, smaller proportions of those who were accused of a non-gender-related homicide and persons accused of a homicide of a man or boy and who consumed an intoxicating substance were found guilty (57% and 56%, respectively).

Start of text box 4

End of text box 4

Section 3: Court outcomes of gender-related attempted murder, aggravated assault and aggravated sexual assault

In addition to examining court outcomes of gender-related homicide, it is also informative to look at other forms of severe violence that could have resulted in death to better understand who is most at risk and how persons accused of such crimes are treated by the courts. The following section relies on the same linked data file as in Section 2, but uses data from the Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Survey merged with the Integrated Criminal Court Survey (ICCS) to examine court outcomes over a 12-(fiscal) year period (2009/2010 to 2020/2021).

Data on gender-related attempted murders, aggravated assaults and aggravated sexual assaults that were cleared by police will be presented. Gender-related attempted murders and aggravated assaults are defined as those perpetrated by a male accused who was either an intimate partner or family member of the victim. Gender-related aggravated sexual assaults include all such crimes perpetrated by a male accused against a female victim, regardless of the relationship shared.^Note  Including an analysis of how gender-related attempted murders and aggravated assaults are treated in the courts provides data to inform programs and policies, identifying prevention opportunities before a case becomes lethal.

More charges per case, on average, when incident is gender-related  

Between 2009 and 2021, there were 7,752 victims of a gender-related attempted murder, aggravated assault or aggravated sexual assault in which the incident was cleared by charge, 69% of which were linked to at least one court charge, resulting in 4,551 cases for analysis.^Note  In these cases, 24,445 charges were laid, with an average of 5.4 linked charges per case.

In contrast, there were 2,668 female victims of a non-gender-related attempted murder, aggravated assault or aggravated sexual assault in which the incident was cleared by charge, 62% of which were linked to at least one court charge, resulting in 1,492 cases for analysis. In these cases, 5,364 charges were laid, averaging 3.6 linked charges per case. There were an additional 17,322 male victims of attempted murder, aggravated assault or aggravated sexual assault in which the incident was cleared by charge, 65% of which were linked to at least one court charge, resulting in 10,106 cases for analysis. In these cases, 36,090 charges were laid with an average of 3.6 linked charges per case.

In general, year-over-year increases in gender-related attempted murder, aggravated assault and aggravated sexual assault cases completed in criminal courts

Except for decreases documented in 2013/2014, 2014/2015, 2020/2021 and, to a lesser extent, 2018/2019, there has been an overall increase in the number of gender-related violent offences completed in the criminal courts over time (Chart 7). Similar increases can be seen with the number of attempted murder, aggravated assault and aggravated sexual assault cases completed in the courts with a male victim whereas the trend line for non-gender-related offences involving a woman or girl has remained comparatively stable over time. These data also show that courts handle approximately three times as many cases of gender-related attempted murder, aggravated assault and aggravated sexual assault compared to non-gender-related incidents involving a woman or girl.

Chart 7 start

Chart 7 end

The comparatively low number of cases completed in 2009/2010 can be explained in part by how the linkage was performed. The linkage file contains data on police-reported incidents that occurred between 2009 and 2021 and their associated court outcomes. Incidents that occurred in 2008 or earlier, but were completed by the courts in 2009/2010 would not be reflected in the linkage or shown in the chart. Likewise, the drop in completed cases documented in 2020/2021 may be explained, in part, by the delays associated with COVID-19 and its corresponding lockdown measures, leaving many cases still active in the courts.

Aggravated assault most common charge laid by police and most serious decision rendered by the courts

According to police data, between 2009 and 2021, police laid or recommended 5,951 aggravated assault charges in gender-related cases, comprising 80% of all charges laid among this group. Aligned with charging practices, the largest proportion of gender-related cases completed in the courts involved an aggravated assault charge (36%) as the most serious decision (MSD) rendered (Table 7).^Note  Of persons charged by police with aggravated assault, 41% were found guilty as charged in court and another 35% had the lesser charges of common assault (level 1) or assault causing bodily harm (level 2) as the MSD.^Note 

An additional 763 (10%) attempted murder charges and 751 (10%) aggravated sexual assault charges were laid or recommended by police against persons accused in severe gender-related violence cases. Among those charged with attempted murder, the most common MSD was also attempted murder (32%) where 38% were found guilty as charged and another 26% had aggravated assault as the MSD.^Note  Finally, when police laid or recommended a charge of aggravated sexual assault, it too was the most common MSD (38%) in court, followed by level 1 or 2 sexual assault (23%).^Note 

Above patterns may reflect the entering of guilty pleas given how prior research has noted that persons accused of intimate partner and domestic violence are more likely to enter a guilty plea (Dawson, 2004a; Dawson, 2004b) and can help explain the most serious decisions being related to or slightly lesser than the original charge laid by police.

Two-thirds of all gender-related attempted murder, aggravated assault and aggravated sexual assault cases result in guilty decision

Most (66%) persons accused in a case of gender-related attempted murder, aggravated assault or aggravated sexual assault were found guilty of any charge in the case (Chart 8). A smaller proportion of accused had their charges stayed, withdrawn, dismissed or discharged (29%) or were acquitted of all charges (4%). These proportions were similar to what was documented for persons accused of the same offences without a gender-related component.

Chart 8 start

Chart 8 end

Of adults found guilty of a gender-related violent offence, nearly seven in ten sentenced to custody

Examining adult accused exclusively, of those who were found guilty of any charge in the gender-related case and the sentencing information was known,^Note  almost seven in ten (67%) received a custodial sentence. One in five (20%) were sentenced to probation and smaller proportions received a conditional sentence (8%), a fine (2%) or another sentencing outcome (2%).

Again, similar breakdowns were observed for persons found guilty of a non-gender-related attempted murder, aggravated assault or aggravated sexual assault of a female or male victim.  Where sentencing information was known,^Note  64% of adults found guilty of a non-gender-related violent offence against a female victim were sentenced to custody, 18% probation and 14% received a conditional sentence. When the victim was male, 66% of offenders received a custodial sentence, 18% a probation order and 12% a conditional sentence.^Note 

Shorter sentences, on average, when case is gender-related

When examining cases of gender-related attempted murder, aggravated assault or aggravated sexual assault where the accused was found guilty of any charge in the case and sentenced to a known period of custody, sentences ranged from one to 9,125 days,^Note  with an average sentence length of 420 days or 1.2 years left to serve after credit was awarded for pre-trial custody. These sentences were shorter by 177 days on average compared with custodial sentences given when the case was not gender-related but involved a female victim and 34 days shorter, on average, when the victim was male.

The above runs counter to what was found for sentencing in cases of gender-related homicide where those convicted had longer sentences left to serve than persons convicted in cases of non-gender-related homicide and in the homicide of men and boys. Sentencing is a complex process, influenced by aggravating and mitigating factors, victim impact statements, and factors related to family violence such as the victim’s potential desire to reconcile or requests for leniency. However, these factors could not be examined due to limitations in data availability.

Summary

Using a linked data file merging information contained in the Homicide Survey with the Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Survey and the Integrated Criminal Court Survey (ICCS), this Juristat article provided an examination of how gender-related homicides of women and girls were handled by the courts and how these outcomes compared to non-gender-related homicide cases. A follow-up analysis was conducted to determine how incidents of gender-related attempted murder, aggravated assault and aggravated sexual assault proceed through the courts system and whether their treatment differs from non-gender-related incidents.

Between 2009/2010 and 2020/2021, 440 cases of gender-related homicide were completed by the criminal courts, averaging 2.7 linked charges per case. Compared with persons accused of a non-gender-related homicide, those accused of a gender-related homicide were more likely to have a murder charge as the most serious violation laid against them, be found guilty of any charge in the case, be sentenced to custody and have longer custodial sentences imposed.

In contrast with the above, fewer notable differences were documented between the three groups for court outcomes associated with the offences of attempted murder, aggravated assault and aggravated sexual assault. While gender-related cases contained more charges on average than those with a non-gender-related female victim or male victim, similar proportions of persons accused in these crimes were found guilty of any charge in the case and sentenced to custody. Persons convicted of a gender-related violent offence received shorter sentences, on average, than those convicted in non-gender-related cases.   

The findings presented in this Juristat are limited to a subset of cases that could be linked across data sets and also by the information contained within each data file. Despite these limitations, the current article offers key information on how courts treat cases of gender-related homicide, attempted murder and aggravated assaults.

Detailed data tables

Table 1 Victims of homicide by gender-related status and victim and incident characteristic, Canada, 2011 to 2021

Table 2 Charges laid in cases linked to police-reported homicides by type of charge completed and gender-related status, criminal courts, Canada, 2009/2010 to 2020/2021

Table 3 Charge laid in cases linked to police-reported homicides by most serious court decision, gender-related status, criminal courts, Canada, 2009/2010 to 2020/2021

Table 4 Characteristics of homicide victims associated with completed court cases by gender-related status, criminal courts, Canada, 2009/2010 to 2020/2021

Table 5 Characteristics of homicide incidents associated with completed court cases by gender-related status, criminal courts, Canada, 2009/2010 to 2020/2021

Table 6 Characteristics of persons accused of homicide associated with completed court cases by gender-related status, criminal courts, Canada, 2009/2010 to 2020/2021

Table 7 Cases linked to police-reported attempted murder and aggravated assault incidents by most serious court decision and gender-related status, criminal courts, 2009/2010 to 2020/2021

Data sources and methodology

Homicide Survey

The Homicide Survey collects police-reported data on the characteristics of all homicide incidents, victims and accused persons in Canada. The Homicide Survey began collecting information on all murders in 1961 and was expanded in 1974 to include all incidents of manslaughter and infanticide. Although details on these incidents are not available prior to 1974, counts are available from the Uniform Crime Reporting Survey (UCR) and are included in the historical aggregate totals.

When a homicide becomes known to police, the investigating police service completes the survey questionnaires, which are then sent to Statistics Canada. There are cases where homicides become known to police months or years after they occurred. These incidents are counted in the year they become known to police (based on the report date). Information on persons accused of homicide is only available for solved incidents (i.e., where at least one accused has been identified). Accused characteristics are updated as homicide cases are solved, and new information is submitted to the Homicide Survey. Information collected through the victim and incident questionnaires is also updated accordingly when a case is solved. For incidents involving more than one accused, only the relationship between the victim and the closest accused is recorded.

The year 2019 marked the first cycle of collection of the Homicide Survey data for which information on gender identity was reported for victims and persons accused of homicide. Gender refers to the gender a person publicly expresses in their daily life, including at work, while shopping or accessing other services, in their housing environment or in the broader community. Prior to 2019, Homicide Survey data was presented by the sex of the victims and accused persons. Sex and gender refer to two different concepts. Caution should be exercised when comparing counts for sex with those for gender. Given that small counts of victims and accused persons reported or were identified as being non-binary, the aggregate Homicide Survey data available to the public has been recoded to distribute these counts to either “men” or “women” in order to ensure the protection of confidentiality and privacy. Victims and accused persons who reported or were identified as being non-binary have been distributed to either men or women categories based on the regional distribution of victims’ or accused persons’ gender.

Incident-based Uniform Crime Reporting Survey

The Incident-based Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Survey is a microdata survey that captures detailed information on crimes reported to and substantiated by police, including the characteristics of victims, accused persons and incidents. Coverage from the UCR2 between 2009 and 2021 is estimated at 99% of the population of Canada and includes only those police services who have consistently responded to the survey in order to allow for comparisons over time.

The option for police to code victims as “gender diverse” in the UCR Survey was implemented in 2018. In the context of the UCR Survey, “gender diverse” refers to a person who publicly expresses as neither exclusively male nor exclusively female. Given that small counts of victims identified as being gender diverse may exist, the UCR data available to the public has been recoded with these victims distributed in the “male” or “female” categories based on the regional distribution of victims’ gender. This recoding ensures the protection of confidentiality and privacy of victims.

Integrated Criminal Court Survey

The Integrated Criminal Court Survey (ICCS) collects statistical information on adult and youth court cases involving Criminal Code and other federal statute offences. Data contained in this article represent both the adult criminal court portion as well as the youth court portion of the survey.

All youth courts in Canada have reported data to the youth component of the survey since the 1991/1992 fiscal year. As of 2005/2006, all provincial and territorial (adult criminal) courts in 10 provinces and 3 territories report to the survey. However, information from superior courts in Ontario, Manitoba and Saskatchewan as well as municipal courts in Quebec are not available for extraction from their electronic reporting systems and are therefore not reported to the survey. Superior court information for Prince Edward Island was also unavailable until 2018/2019.

The primary unit of analysis is a case. A case is defined as one or more charges against an accused person or company that were processed by the courts at the same time and received a final decision. A case combines all charges against the same person having one or more key overlapping dates (date of offence, date of initiation, date of first appearance, date of decision, or date of sentencing) into a single case.

A case that has more than one charge is represented by the charge with the “most serious offence” (MSO). The most serious offence is selected using the following rules. First, court decisions are considered and the charge with the “most serious decision” (MSD) is selected. Court decisions for each charge in a case are ranked from most to 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, and 8) transfer of court jurisdiction.

Second, in cases where two or more charges result in the same MSD (e.g., guilty), Criminal Code sentences are considered. The charge with the most serious offence type is selected according to an offence seriousness scale, based on actual sentences handed down by courts in Canada. Each offence type is ranked by looking at (a) the proportion of guilty charges where custody was imposed and (b) the average (mean) length of custody for the specific type of offence. These values are multiplied together to arrive at the final seriousness ranking for each type of offence. If, after looking at the offence seriousness scale, two or more charges remain tied then information about the sentence type and duration of the sentence are considered (e.g., custody and length of custody, then probation and length of probation, etc.).

Linkage file: Overview and limitations

Sections 2 and 3 in this Juristat article are based on a data file which linked police-reported data from the Homicide Survey and the Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Survey with administrative data from the Integrated Criminal Courts Survey (ICCS).

The linkage was conducted in multiple steps using key information about the persons involved and the incidents. First, information about the persons, such as province, gender (or sex in the case of ICCS data), age or birthdate, and soundex (an algorithm that encodes names) were considered. Next, any matches were further linked based on the incident date, the date it was reported to police, the date charges were laid.

While the linkage allows for a greater examination of outcomes depending on characteristics of the victim, accused, and incident as captured by the Homicide Survey, there are limitations that should be considered when interpreting the findings, namely data coverage and elapsed time between an incident and the completion of a court case.

In terms of data coverage, not all jurisdictions in Canada currently report data to the ICCS: information from superior courts in Ontario, Manitoba and Saskatchewan as well as municipal courts in Quebec are not reported, while superior court information for Prince Edward Island was also unavailable until 2018/2019. The absence of data from superior courts in these jurisdictions is particularly notable for this analysis, as more serious cases (e.g., homicides) are usually processed in superior court.

In terms of time, some homicide incidents that did not successfully link to a completed charge may still be before the courts, particularly in recent years where the linkage rates were noticeably lower.  Further, the most recent years included in the linkage were impacted by delays, closures, and modifications to criminal court processes associated with the COVID-19 pandemic and related measures. As the ICCS data reflects only completed charges, those which are still active in the court system are not reflected in this linkage.

It is also possible that incidents do not successfully link due to missing or incomplete information in one or more of the files.  Due to the systemic factors impacting the linkage rate, the characteristics of cases included in the analysis could differ from cases which could not be linked successfully. Despite these limitations, however, the linked file affords the opportunity to examine factors associated with court case characteristics and outcomes in greater detail than would be possible if using the ICCS data on its own. See Text box 2 for more information about the scope and limitations of the linkage.

References

Academic Council on the United Nations System (ACUNS). (2017). Femicide volume VII: Establishing a femicide watch in every country.

Alisic, E., Groot, A., Snetselaar, H., Stroeken, T., & van de Putte, E. (2017). Children bereaved by fatal intimate partner violence: A population-based study into demographics, family characteristics and homicide exposure. PLoS ONE, 12(10), 1-13.

Beaupré, P. (2015). Cases in adult criminal courts involving intimate partner violence. Juristat. Statistics Canada Catalogue no. 85-002-X.

Beaver, K.M., & Wright, J.P. (2019). Self-reported male-female differences in criminal involvement do not account for criminal justice processing differences. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 44, 859-871.

Black, D.J. (1976). The behavior of law. Academic Press.

Burczycka, M., & Cotter, A. (2023). Court outcomes in homicides of Indigenous women and girls, 2009 to 2021. Juristat. Statistics Canada Catalogue no. 85-002-X.

Caputi, J., & Russell, D.E. (1990). Femicide: Speaking the unspeakable.

Curry, T.R., Lee, G., & Rodriguez, S.F. (2004). Does victim gender increase sentence severity? Further explorations of gender dynamics and sentencing outcomes. Crime & Delinquency, 50(3), 319-343.

David, J.-D., & Jaffray, B. (2022). Homicide in Canada, 2021. Juristat. Statistics Canada Catalogue no. 85‑002‑X.

Dawson, M., & Mobayed, S. (2023). The Routledge International Handbook of Femicide and Feminicide. London: Routledge.

Dawson, M., Zecha, A., & Angus, H. (2023). #CallItFemicide: Understanding sex/gender-related killings of women and girls in Canada, 2018-2022. Canadian Femicide Observatory for Justice and Accountability.

Dawson, M., & Carrigan, M. (2021). Identifying femicide locally and globally: Understanding the utility and accessibility of sex/gender-related motives and indicators. Current Sociology, 69(5), 682-704.

Dawson, M., & Hill, E. (2021). Understanding child-to-parent homicide in the Canadian context. In K. Fitz-Gibbon, H. Douglas and J. Maher (Eds.), Young people using family violence: International perspectives on research, responses and reforms (pp. 107-129). Springer.

Dawson, M., Sutton, D., Zecha, A., Boyd, C., Johnson, A., & Mitchell, A. (2021). #CallItFemicide: Understanding sex/gender-related killings of women and girls in Canada, 2020. Canadian Femicide Observatory for Justice and Accountability.

Dawson, M., Sutton, D., Carrigan, M., Grand’Maison, V., Bader, D., Zecha, A., & Boyd, C. (2019). #CallItFemicide: Understanding gender-related killings of women and girls in Canada 2019. Canadian Femicide Observatory for Justice and Accountability.

Dawson, M., & Sutton, D. (2017). Similar sentences, similar crimes? Using deep sample analysis to examine the comparability of crimes and punishments by victim-defendant relationship. International Journal of Crime, Law and Justice, 49, 58-70.

Dawson, M. (2016). Punishing femicide: Criminal justice responses to the killing of women over four decades. Current Sociology, 64(7), 996-1016.

Dawson, M. (2012). Intimacy, homicide, and punishment: Examining court outcomes over three decades. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 45(3), 400-422.

Dawson, M. (2006). Intimacy, violence and the law: Exploring stereotypes about victim-defendant relationship and violent crime. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 96(4), 1417–1450.

Dawson, M. (2004a). Criminal justice outcomes in intimate and non-intimate partner homicide cases. Department of Justice. Research and Statistics Division.  

Dawson, M. (2004b). Rethinking the boundaries of intimacy at the end of the century: The role of victim-defendant relationship in criminal justice decisionmaking over time. Law & Society Review, 38(1), 105-138.

Franklin, C.A., & Fearn, N.E. (2008). Gender, race, and formal court decision-making outcomes: Chivalry/paternalism, conflict theory or gender conflict? Journal of Criminal Justice, 36, 279-290.

Gannon, M., & Brzozowski, J.-A. (2004). “Sentencing in cases of family violence” in Family Violence in Canada: A Statistical Profile. Juristat. Statistics Canada Catalogue no. 85-002-X.

Government of Canada. (2022). Legislative Background: An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Youth Criminal Justice Act and other Acts and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, as enacted (Bill C-75 in the 42nd Parliament).

Grant, I. (2017). Sentencing for intimate partner violence in Canada: Has s.718.2(a)(ii) made a difference? Department of Justice.

Grant, I. (2010). Intimate femicide: A study of sentencing trends for men who kill their intimate partners. Alberta Law Review, 47(3), 779-822.

Johnson, A., & Dawson, M. (2021). Comparing child homicide: An examination of characteristics by degrees of intimacy. Child Abuse Review, 30(3), 251-267.

Rapaport, E. (1996). Capital murder and the domestic discount: A study of capital domestic murder in the post-Furman era. SMU Law Review, 49(5), 1507-1548.

Richards, T.N., Smith, M.D., Fogel, S.J., & Bjerregaard, B. (2015). When domestic goes capital: Juror decision making in capital trials involving domestic homicide. Law and Human Behavior, 1-14.

Sarmiento, C.B., Acosta, M.L., Roth, F., & Zambrano, M. (2014). Latin American Model Protocol for the investigation of gender-related killings of women (femicide/feminicide). United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights.

Statistics Canada. (2022, September 9). Indigenous population continues to grow and is much younger than the non-Indigenous population, although the pace of growth has slowed. The Daily. Statistics Canada Catalogue no. 11-001-X.

Sutton, D. (2023a). Gender-related homicide of women and girls in Canada. Juristat. Statistics Canada Catalogue no. 85-002-X.

Sutton, D. (2023b). Victimization of men and boys in Canada, 2021. Juristat. Statistics Canada Catalogue no. 85-002-X.

United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC). (2018). Global study on homicide: Gender-related killing of women and girls.

World Health Organization. (2012). Understanding and addressing violence against women: Femicide.