An Act to amend the Criminal Code (restitution orders)

Summary#

Bill C-238, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (restitution orders), would amend the federal Criminal Code. It would let a court order certain offenders to repay qualifying organizations for some costs of services provided to a person because of the offence. The bill’s stated goal is to help community organizations obtain restitution for those costs; the text does not make the proposed changes law or say when they would start.

• A court may order payment to an organization that provides front-line services to victims of a listed offence and incurred expenses providing services to a person as a result of that offence.
• The order could cover no more than the expenses, and only to the extent they are reasonable and the amount is readily ascertainable.
• The listed offences involve sexual conduct or purpose; criminal harassment or human trafficking; violence used, threatened or attempted against an intimate partner; or importing, exporting, producing or trafficking a controlled substance.
• If the court orders both this new type of payment and payments under existing Criminal Code paragraphs 738(1)(a) to (e), it must give those existing payments priority.

What it means for you#

• Qualifying organizations: A court could order an offender to pay you for qualifying service expenses. The bill does not require a court to make such an order, and an organization would have to meet the bill’s conditions.
• People convicted of listed offences: You could be ordered to pay qualifying expenses, up to their reasonable amount if readily ascertainable. The bill does not set a payment schedule or say how inability to pay would be handled.
• People owed other restitution amounts: If the court orders both types of payment, amounts under paragraphs 738(1)(a) to (e) must be paid first. The supplied material does not identify those existing payment types.
• Everyone else: The bill does not directly create a new service for victims or change the listed criminal offences or their penalties.

Money#

No cost estimate is provided in the supplied material.

• Payments would come from offenders if a court made an order; the bill does not provide public funding for organizations.
• The bill gives no estimate of how many orders might be made or how much they might total.
• The amount is limited to qualifying expenses that are reasonable and readily ascertainable.

What is unclear#

• The supplied material does not include the full current Criminal Code, so the existing rules and payment types in paragraphs 738(1)(a) to (e) cannot be verified here.
• The bill does not define “front-line services,” “organization,” or “readily ascertainable.”
• It does not set out how an organization would provide evidence of its expenses, or how a court would decide whether expenses are reasonable.
• It does not explain how the new payment would interact with other restitution orders beyond setting the stated priority.
• The supplied material does not say whether the bill has passed or when it would take effect.

Case for#

• The bill appears intended to address costs that organizations incur when providing services because of certain offences.
• A possible argument for the bill is that courts could order offenders to repay those costs, while the limits on amount and proof would restrict orders to expenses that are reasonable and readily ascertainable.
• The priority rule preserves payment priority for amounts ordered under the existing paragraphs.

Case against#

• The bill does not clearly explain which organizations or services qualify, or how courts should assess the expenses. Different interpretations could lead to uncertainty.
• The order is discretionary, so the bill does not ensure that organizations will recover costs.
• A possible trade-off is that payments to organizations come after amounts ordered under paragraphs 738(1)(a) to (e), which could limit what organizations receive when an offender must pay multiple amounts.