Restitution for Front-Line Community Services

Summary#

This bill changes the Criminal Code to let courts order offenders to repay community service organizations for certain costs caused by human trafficking and serious drug crimes. It adds a new kind of restitution order (a court order that an offender pays money to cover losses) for non‑individual “front‑line” providers, such as emergency services and victim support services (Criminal Code s.738(1)(f) as amended).

• Applies to human trafficking offences (Criminal Code ss.279.01–279.02) and drug trafficking/import/export/production offences (Controlled Drugs and Substances Act ss.5, 6, 7.1).
• Eligible payees are organizations (not individuals) that provide front‑line community services, including emergency and victim support services (s.738(1)(f)).
• Costs must be reasonable and readily measurable, and cannot exceed the amount of the expenses (s.738(1)(f)).
• Covered expenses include emergency shelter/medical services, harm reduction programs, security measures, staff counselling for workplace trauma, and added operating costs to meet increased demand (s.738(1)(f)(i)–(v)).
• This restitution is ordered in addition to any other restitution ordered under s.738 (s.738(1)(f)).

What it means for you#

• Households and service users

  • Community organizations may have more resources to keep shelters open, stock overdose‑reversal supplies, and expand harm reduction or counselling if courts order offenders to repay those costs (s.738(1)(f)(i)–(ii), (iv)–(v)).
  • No direct payments to individual residents under this bill; payments go to organizations that provide front‑line services (s.738(1)(f)).

• Workers in front‑line services

  • Employers may seek restitution for counselling and mental health supports for staff who experience workplace trauma linked to the offence (s.738(1)(f)(iv)).
  • Possible improvements to security measures and training funded by restitution, if ordered (s.738(1)(f)(iii), (v)).

• Community organizations and local governments

  • You can ask prosecutors to seek restitution for specified costs tied to a qualifying offence, if the amounts are reasonable and readily measurable (s.738(1)(f)).
  • Eligible costs include emergency shelter/medical services, harm reduction, security, staff counselling, and added operating costs like hiring or specialized training (s.738(1)(f)(i)–(v)).
  • You must document expenses so they are “readily ascertainable” for the court. Disputed or hard‑to‑measure community harms are not covered (s.738(1)(f)).
  • Restitution is separate from other restitution the court may order, but still capped at your actual reasonable expenses (s.738(1)(f)).

• Offenders convicted of covered offences

  • You may face added restitution obligations to community organizations, on top of any other restitution ordered (s.738(1)(f)).
  • The court can only order amounts that match reasonable, readily measurable expenses caused by the offence (s.738(1)(f)).

• Courts and prosecutors

  • Sentencing may include requests for organizational restitution in trafficking and CDSA s.5/6/7.1 cases, requiring evidence of eligible costs (s.738(1)(f)).
  • The “readily ascertainable” standard limits hearings to clear, documented expenses (s.738(1)(f)).

Expenses#

• Estimated net cost: Data unavailable. The bill creates offender‑paid restitution to eligible organizations; it does not appropriate public funds (Criminal Code s.738(1)(f) as amended).

• Key points:

  • No appropriation or government spending authorization appears in the bill text.
  • Potential administrative impacts on courts and prosecutors to evaluate documentation: Data unavailable.
  • Number and size of restitution orders will depend on case volumes and offenders’ circumstances: Data unavailable.

Proponents' View#

• Shifts some costs of trafficking and drug crimes from taxpayers and charities to offenders, by allowing repayment for specific community service expenses (s.738(1)(f)(i)–(v)).
• Supports sentencing goals that recognize and repair harm to communities, as noted in the preamble and reflected in restitution provisions of s.738 (Preamble; s.738(1)(f)).
• Targets urgent needs such as naloxone and other overdose‑reversal supplies, emergency shelter, and harm reduction services that respond directly to the offence’s impacts (s.738(1)(f)(i)–(ii)).
• Helps maintain safe operations through security measures and specialized training, improving service continuity during crime‑related surges in demand (s.738(1)(f)(iii), (v)).
• The “reasonable” and “readily ascertainable” tests prevent inflated or speculative claims and keep orders tied to clear, documented costs (s.738(1)(f)).

Opponents' View#

• Collection risk: many restitution orders go unpaid if offenders lack means; the bill does not create a payment fund or enforcement mechanism beyond existing law (s.738; general restitution framework).
• Administrative burden: documenting “readily ascertainable” organizational costs and linking them to a specific offence may lengthen sentencing and require detailed records (s.738(1)(f)).
• Scope and consistency concerns: “person, other than an individual” who provides front‑line services could include a wide range of entities, raising disputes over eligibility and uniform application (s.738(1)(f)).
• Risk of double counting and complexity: courts must avoid overlap with other restitution or funding streams while staying within “not more than the amount of those expenses,” which may require granular accounting (s.738(1)(f)).
• Limited to certain offences: communities affected by other crimes are not covered, creating uneven access to restitution across similar community harms (s.738(1)(f); offence list).