The Federal Victim Surcharge in Saskatchewan

2. Methodology

The purpose of this research project was to better understand how the Federal Victim Surcharge is working in the province of Saskatchewan. Specific research questions included:

  1. What are the waiver rates?
  2. What reasons are provided for the waiver?
  3. How is the FVS documented in court files?
  4. What are the collection rates?
  5. What are the enforcement strategies in Saskatchewan and what, if any, are the consequences of non-compliance?
  6. What other options could be considered for collection?
  7. Why has the anticipated revenue to be generated from the 1999 amendments to the Criminal Code provisions related to the FVS not been realized?

In order to answer these questions, the project used a mixed methods approach incorporating both quantitative and qualitative data from several different sources, which are described below.

2.1 Data Sources

The data sources for this study included statistical provincial court data from the province’s Justice Automated Information Network. Data were also gathered from Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics, a file review of provincial court files, an auditory review of sentencing hearings, and interviews with criminal justice stakeholders.

Provincial court data

A data request was made to the Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics for relevant data on the federal victim surcharge in Saskatchean. Data on collection of the surcharge was also retrieved directly from the Justice Automated Information Network (JAIN), the Saskatchewan provincial court database. As well, 50 court files from the Regina courthouse were randomly selected and reviewed to determine if and how the imposition/waiver and reasons for the FVS were recorded.

Sentencing audio recordings

Recordings of criminal court proceedings were obtained from the Provincial Court of Saskatchewan. These hearings took place in Regina from December 12, 2007 to January 9, 2008. Out of a total of 31 compact discs and approximately 63.5 hours of court proceedings, 143 sentencing hearings were identified. The objective of reviewing sentencing hearings was to examine the application practise of the Federal Victim Surcharge at the time of sentencing. We sought to better understand what occurred when the surcharge was waived. In doing so, the following questions were asked:

  1. Was the surcharge regularly addressed at sentencing?
  2. Was evidence of undue hardship presented and if so, by which party?
  3. Did the sentencing judge give reasons for the waiver?
  4. Were there particular circumstances for which the surcharge was generally waived?

Interviews with criminal justice stakeholders

Four court locations were selected to reflect the geographic and demographic diversities of Saskatchewan: Regina, Saskatoon, Meadow Lake and Yorkton. Interviews were undertaken with criminal justice stakeholders (n=38) from each of these sites including Crown prosecutors (4), defence (both private bar and legal aid, 8), court staff (8), programs/policy staff (2) and probation officers (16). A request to participate in the study was sent to the Chief Judge of the Provincial Court. Unfortunately, no judges volunteered to participate in the study.[17] Most interviews were completed by a contractor in person and between August and October 2008 at a location convenient to that individual. When scheduling did not permit face-to-face interviews, a few were completed over the telephone. A few interviews were conducted with two or more respondents at the same time. The interviews were taped and transcribed and the data sent to Justice Canada for analysis.

The majority of the interviewees were contacted with the assistance of Saskatchewan Ministry of Justice and Attorney General officials. The semi-structured interview guide, which also included questions on restitution for another project, was developed by the Department of Justice Canada, in consultation with Saskatchewan officials, and was based on previous FVS research (Prairie Research Associates 2004; Law and Sullivan 2006; Ha 2009). Different questions were asked of the various stakeholders. The different questionnaires can be found in the Appendices.

2.2 Limitations of the Study

There are several limitations to this study. The first is the lack of comprehensive data on the collection of the FVS. As well, the auditory review of sentencing hearings and the review of court files took place only in Regina, and as such, cannot be generalized to the other court locations or to the province as a whole. The interview data are limited in that those interviewed may not necessarily reflect the entire range of situations or experiences. Furthermore, judges did not participate in the study.

2.3 Ethics

The study was reviewed by the Research Review Committee of the Research and Statistics Division (RSD), Department of Justice Canada. The Research and Statistics (RRC) Division has developed an internal ethics review process that is based on the principles found in the Tri- Council Policy Statement: Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans.[18] An Ethics Template was completed and presented to the RRC, along with copies of the letter of information and letter of consent.

[17] We received a written response from one judge, but felt we could not to include it as it would reflect only the perspectives of that one individual and potentially identify that individual.

[18] In Canada, all research involving human participants that receives funding from the three federal research agencies must undergo an ethics review. Canadian universities adhere to a model of ethics review that has emerged in the international community. The model involves the application of national norms by multidisciplinary, independent local Research Ethics Boards (REBs). (Canadian Institutes of Health Research et al. 1998)  At the time of writing this report, a new Tri-Council Policy had been drafted and consultations on this draft are on-going.