A Timeline of Legislation
Introduction of British Columbia’s Criminal Injury Compensation Act (circa 1972) —
Groundbreaking for its time, though narrow by today’s standards, BC was among the first provinces in Canada to establish such a scheme, following Ontario (1967) and Saskatchewan (1969). The Act created a statutory right to apply for financial compensation if a person suffered bodily harm, disability, or death as a result of a criminal offence committed in BC. The program was administered by the Criminal Injury Compensation Board (CICB) — an independent quasi-judicial tribunal that reviewed applications and determined awards.
Key features of the Act:
1. Eligibility for Victims and Dependents
Victims who suffered physical injury or death as a direct result of a criminal act could apply for compensation.
In cases of homicide, dependents or family members could apply on behalf of the deceased.
2. Compensation Categories
Medical and rehabilitation expenses
Loss of income due to injury
Funeral costs (in homicide cases)
Lump-sum payments for permanent disability
Limited support for dependents of deceased victims
3. Quasi-Judicial Decision-Making
Applications were adjudicated by the Criminal Injury Compensation Board, which held hearings, reviewed evidence, and issued written decisions — much like a court.
Awards were discretionary, and decisions could take months or years.
4. Conviction Not Required (But Police Report Often Was)
Compensation could be awarded even if the perpetrator was not identified or convicted — a significant departure from traditional civil litigation requirements.
However, victims were generally required to have reported the crime to police and cooperated with the investigation.
Limitations and Critiques:
While the Act was a major step forward, by the 1990s it was widely viewed as outdated and insufficient. Key criticisms included:
Narrow eligibility: Psychological trauma, sexual assault without physical injury, or indirect victims (e.g. witnesses) were often excluded.
Complex and adversarial: Victims had to navigate a quasi-legal process, submit evidence, and sometimes testify before the Board — which many found retraumatizing.
Slow and inconsistent: Decisions could take long periods, and awards varied widely.
Limited scope: It offered financial compensation only — no counselling, safety planning, relocation support, or broader services.
These criticisms were amplified by growing awareness of trauma, the rise of the victims’ rights movement, and evolving ideas of justice in the 1980s and 1990s. Reports from victim advocates and legislative reviews consistently recommended a more victim-centred, service-oriented model.
Impact and Legacy:
The Criminal Injury Compensation Act (1972) was a pioneering piece of victim legislation in British Columbia. It reflected a new social contract — that the state had a responsibility to financially compensate people harmed by crime. However, its narrow scope, rigid processes, and outdated definitions of harm made it increasingly inadequate as understandings of trauma, gender-based violence, and victims’ rights evolved.
Its eventual replacement by the Crime Victim Assistance Act (2001) after the marked a paradigm shift: from a limited compensation model to a comprehensive, trauma-informed system — one that prioritized the recovery, safety, and dignity of victims over mere financial redress. But before we would get there, there would be a declaration from the United Nations and a Violence Against Women in Relationships (VAWIR) Policy influencing the improvement of legislation.
April 17, 1982: The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms —
Will add more here.
Circa 1985: The UN Declares Victims Rights as Human Rights —
The United Nations formally recognized victims’ rights as human rights on November 29, 1985, when the UN General Assembly adopted the Declaration of Basic Principles of Justice for Victims of Crime and Abuse of Power by Resolution 40/34.
This Declaration was the first international instrument to define victims’ rights as a matter of human rights and justice, rather than charity or discretion. It established that:
Victims have the right to access justice and fair treatment,
the right to restitution and compensation, and
the right to receive assistance and protection from secondary victimization.
The Declaration also introduced, for the first time, the concept of “victims of abuse of power” — recognizing that state actors, not only private individuals, can cause harm that violates human rights.
Circa 1993: British Columbia introduced the Violence Against Women in Relationships (VAWIR) Policy —
One of British Columbia’s most significant and transformative policy frameworks for addressing intimate partner violence (IPV). First introduced in the early 1990s, VAWIR marked a decisive shift away from treating domestic violence as a “private family matter” and toward recognizing it as a criminal offence and public safety issue requiring a coordinated, systemic response.
It became the backbone of BC’s justice and social service approach to power-based violence — and it directly shaped later reforms like the Crime Victim Assistance Act (2001) and the 2007 Referral Policy for Victims of Power-Based Crimes.
1. Historical Context: Before VAWIR (Pre-1990s)
Until the late 1980s, police, prosecutors, and courts across Canada — including BC — often treated domestic violence as a civil or family matter. It was all the more common for:
Police to decline to lay charges if a victim didn’t explicitly request it.
Crown prosecutors to withdraw charges if the victim later recanted or hesitated.
Cases of spousal assault to be minimized as “domestic disputes” rather than criminal assaults.
Meanwhile, the women’s movement and anti-violence advocates were exposing how widespread and systemically ignored IPV was — and how victims were being retraumatized by a justice system that treated their experiences as secondary.
By the late 1980s, pressure was mounting for governments to act. Key developments included:
High-profile domestic homicide inquests calling for systemic change.
A series of public reports (e.g. the 1990 Badgley Report and Federal-Provincial Working Group on Violence Against Women) urging mandatory responses.
Gowing recognition that non-intervention put victims at continued risk.
2. Introduction of the VAWIR Policy (Early 1990s)
In this context, British Columbia introduced the Violence Against Women in Relationships (VAWIR) Policy around 1993. It was a joint initiative of the Ministry of Attorney General, the Solicitor General, and the Ministry of Children and Families, developed in collaboration with police, Crown counsel, victim services, and community anti-violence organizations.
3. Purpose
The VAWIR Policy was designed to standardize and strengthen the province’s response to intimate partner violence by:
Establishing clear expectations for police, prosecutors, and victim services.
Promoting a coordinated, multi-agency approach to cases.
Shifting decision-making away from victims — and onto the criminal justice system — to reduce pressure, coercion, and re-victimization.
It was a policy, not legislation — but it was binding for police and Crown agencies through their internal protocols.
4. Core Principles of the Original VAWIR Policy
The original 1990s version of VAWIR introduced several principles that, arguably, still shape BC’s approach to IPV today:
a. Pro-Charge Policy
Police were directed to lay charges whenever there was reasonable and probable grounds to believe an offence had occurred — regardless of the victim’s wishes. This shifted responsibility for enforcement from victims to the state.
b. Pro-Prosecution Policy
Crown counsel were instructed to proceed with charges wherever there was sufficient evidence, even if the victim recanted or was reluctant to testify. Victims could no longer be pressured to “drop” charges.
c. Coordinated Response
The policy mandated collaboration between police, prosecutors, victim services, child protection, and community agencies to ensure that victims received safety planning, support, and information throughout the process.
d. Risk and Safety Considerations
VAWIR emphasized early risk assessment, bail conditions, and ongoing safety planning — recognizing the heightened danger after separation or police involvement.
e. Victim Support and Information
While prosecution decisions were no longer left solely to victims, the policy stressed the importance of keeping victims informed and referring them to victim services for support and advocacy.
5. Evolution and Key Updates
Since its introduction, the VAWIR Policy has undergone several important updates to reflect evolving understandings of violence, trauma, and best practices:
2000 Update: Improved guidance on safety planning, information sharing, and risk assessment. Expanded the scope of relationships covered (including same-sex relationships and dating violence).
2010 Revision: Addressed high-risk case coordination and clarified roles between community-based and system-based victim services. It also incorporated early trauma-informed principles and emphasized culturally appropriate responses, particularly for Indigenous women.
Each update reflected growing awareness of the complexities of IPV — including coercive control, risk escalation, and the barriers victims face in seeking justice.
6. Impact and Legacy
The introduction of VAWIR fundamentally changed the landscape of domestic violence response in British Columbia. Its legacy includes:
Normalization of police involvement: Domestic violence is now widely treated as a criminal matter, not a private dispute.
The introduction of coordinated protocols across the province to improve consistency across: police, prosecutors, and victim services agencies.
Reduced pressure on victims: Survivors are no longer solely responsible for initiating or sustaining charges.
In short: The introduction of the VAWIR Policy in the early 1990s was BC’s watershed moment in confronting domestic violence. It institutionalized mandatory charging and prosecution, built the first coordinated response framework, and ensured that victims were no longer left to navigate the justice system alone — laying the foundation for two decades of progressive reforms in victim services and gender-based violence response.
It has since been revised several times, with two major updates that are often referenced as key milestones:
2000 Update: Expanded definitions (e.g., to include dating and same-sex relationships) and strengthened risk assessment and safety planning provisions.
2010 Update: The major trauma-informed revision, which deeply integrated principles of trauma science, coercive control, cultural safety, and interagency coordination.
Circa 2001: British Columbia’s Introduction of the Crime Victims Assistance Act —
This was a key piece of provincial legislation in B.C. that modernized and expanded the province’s approach to supporting victims of crime. It was introduced to replace the older Criminal Injury Compensation Act (CICA), which dated back to the 1970s. The CVAA came into effect on June 30, 2002 and marked a major policy shift — from a narrow, compensation-based model toward a more holistic, victim-centred support framework. The goal was to “improve access to services, broaden eligibility, expand categories of support, recognize psychological harm, and simplify the process” for people affected by violent crime, including victims, immediate family members, and witnesses without the requirement of a criminal conviction.
The Crime Victim Assistance Program (CVAP), created under the Act, remains BC’s primary vehicle for providing support to victims today. It is administered by the Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General and continues to evolve — for instance, adapting to address gender-based violence, trauma-informed practice, and culturally safe service delivery for Indigenous communities.
Circa 2006: Canada’s Federal Department of Justice is Made Aware of Data Capturing Concerns
See above.
Circa 2007 (January): British Columbia’s Referral Policy for Victims of Crime —
In January 2007, British Columbia’s Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General’s Policing and Community Safety Branch published A Referral Policy for Victims of Power Based Crimes confirming provinces and territories continue to be the primary providers of victim services.
1. Historical Context: Why a Referral Policy Was Needed
By the mid-2000s, British Columbia had already taken significant steps to modernize its response to intimate partner violence (IPV) and sexualized violence:
The Criminal Injury Compensation Act (1972) had long provided limited compensation for physical injury.
The Violence Against Women in Relationships (VAWIR) Policy (early 1990s) had shifted police and Crown practice to a pro-charge, pro-prosecution model and introduced coordinated responses.
The Crime Victim Assistance Act (CVAA) (2001) had replaced the old compensation scheme with a comprehensive support system, expanding services beyond financial help to include counselling, relocation, safety planning, and more.
Yet despite these advances, a major service gap remained: victims of “power-based crimes” — a term referring to offences rooted in domination, control, or abuse of power (such as sexual assault, intimate partner violence, criminal harassment, and stalking) — were still not being consistently connected to support services.
This inconsistency stemmed from several systemic problems:
Referrals to victim services were often left to police discretion, leading to inconsistent practices across jurisdictions.
Victims who did not explicitly ask for help — often due to fear, trauma, or distrust of the system — were frequently overlooked.
Agencies operated in silos, and there was no province-wide requirement that police, Crown, or victim service programs ensure survivors were contacted or supported.
2. Introduction of the Referral Policy (January 2007)
To address this gap, the Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General introduced the “Referral Policy for Victims of Power-Based Crimes” in January 2007.
It was released as a formal policy bulletin directed at:
Police agencies (both RCMP detachments and municipal forces)
Crown counsel and other criminal justice officials
System-based and community-based victim service programs
The policy was not legislation, but it carried significant weight: it was tied to existing legislative, policy, and contractual obligations and became a required standard of practice across the province.
3. Purpose and Philosophy of the Policy
The goal of the Referral Policy was simple but transformative: to ensure that every victim of a power-based crime is proactively offered support services, regardless of whether they request them.
It was built on several key principles:
a. Trauma-Informed Practice
The policy recognized that trauma often prevents victims from seeking help. Survivors may minimize the violence, fear retaliation, or distrust authorities. Therefore, the responsibility to offer support lies with the system — not the victim.
b. Proactive Outreach
Instead of relying on victims to ask, police and Crown were required to initiate referrals to victim services immediately after a report or investigation of a qualifying offence.
c. Collaboration and Continuity of Care
The policy emphasized coordination between police, Crown, system-based services, and community-based agencies. Victims should not be “handed off” without follow-up — referrals should ensure active connection to support.
d. Safety and Choice
Referrals were framed as empowering, not coercive: victims retained the right to decline services, but the offer had to be made proactively and clearly.
4. Scope: What Qualifies as a “Power-Based Crime”
The policy defined power-based crimes as offences in which power, control, and abuse of trust or vulnerability are central elements, including:
Intimate partner violence / domestic assault
Sexual assault and sexual exploitation
Criminal harassment and stalking
Forced confinement or coercive control
Other violent offences motivated by domination, fear, or intimidation
This framing was significant — it moved beyond “domestic violence” to capture the broader spectrum of gendered and power-driven violence, and it embedded the understanding that such crimes require a distinct, trauma-informed response.
5. Implementation: How the Policy Works
The 2007 Referral Policy created clear, mandatory expectations for key actors:
Police
Must inform victims of available services at the first point of contact.
Must obtain consent (where required) to share contact information with a victim service agency.
Must complete the referral process promptly, ideally within 24 to 48 hours of a report.
Crown Counsel
Must reinforce the referral process if a victim has not already been connected to support.
Should work with victim services to ensure victims are kept informed about court proceedings, safety planning, and protective orders.
Victim Service Programs
Must respond quickly once a referral is received, initiating contact and offering support.
Must coordinate with police, Crown, and community agencies to ensure a seamless continuum of care.
6. Policy Impact: Closing the “Referral Gap”
The introduction of the referral policy in 2007 was widely recognized as a watershed moment in BC’s victim services landscape. Its impacts included:
Dramatic increase in referrals to both community-based and system-based victim service agencies.
Improved safety planning and early intervention for victims at risk of ongoing violence.
More consistent access to counselling, housing support, financial aid (through CVAP), and legal advocacy.
Stronger collaboration between justice and social services sectors, reducing fragmentation and duplication.
The policy also became a model referenced in other provinces and informed best practices across Canada, especially in relation to police and victim services coordination.
Circa 2007 (June): Canada Introduces the Federal Office of the Ombudsman for Victims of Crime —
Intended to serve as an independent resource for victims in Canada, The Ombudsman's role is to ensure the federal government meets its commitments to promote access to existing government programs and services, and to identify and explore systemic and emerging victim issues. The Office operates at arm's length from the federal departments responsible for victim issues, namely, the Department of Justice and the Department of Public Safety.
Steve Sullivan was the first appointee to the National Ombudsman for Victims of Crime where he served until 2010. Prior to his appointment, he served as President of the Canadian Resource Centre for Victims of Crime.
Circa 2008: The Supreme Court Law Review Osgoode’s Annual Constitutional Cases Conference
Published in 2008, Expanding Victims’ Rights in the Charter Era and Beyond, 2008 CanLIIDocs 427 by Joan Barrett, makes the early argument that “[t]his paper focuses on the gains that victims have made over the last 25 years predominately through legislative reform and the related Charter jurisprudence. It then questions whether these gains have resulted in increased victim satisfaction or whether the Charter, and the numerous legislative initiatives designed to address victims’ interests, including the enactment of victims’ bills of rights, merely created false hopes. Finally, it considers some of the remaining challenges and whether there are other viable measures to address the lingering dissatisfaction of victims with the criminal justice system.”
Circa 2010: Update to British Columbia’s Violence Against Women in Relationships (VAWIR) Policy —
Following the tragic loss of Christian Lee, a coroner’s inquest, and a report by the Representative for Children and Youth, B-SAFER was introduced as a standardized police risk-assessment tool, community supervision (bail) conditions were standardized, and integrated child protection services were introduced.
Circa 2010: Sue O’Sullivan appointed as Federal Ombudsperson for Victims of Crime —
Coming from the Ottawa Police Service where she’d served as the Deputy Chief. Looking at the work that Sue O’Sullivan did as during her time as Ombudsperson we have:
February 2012 Ombudsman Urges Bill to Boost Rights of Crime Victims
July 2015 https://finance.yahoo.com/news/canadas-federal-ombudsman-victims-crime-123000132.html;
July 23, 2015: Canada’s Victims Bill of Rights Receives Royal Assent —
30 years after the UN’s declaration that The Canadian Victims Bill of Rights would be laid out to recognize victims rights are human rights and ensure the protection of these rights in Canada. However, these rights are still not yet enshrined under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Circa 2016: Canada’s Former Federal Ombudsperson for Victims of Crime Moves on to Chair the International Network Supporting Victims of Terrorism and Mass Violence (INVICTM) —
After serving as Ombudsperson for Victims of crime she then went on to Chair the International Framework of Dialogue and Information Sharing (IFDIS) in June of 2016, which then re-brands as the International Network Supporting Victims of Terrorism and Mass Violence (INVICTM) to better reflect its expanded mission, membership, and activities.
Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, March 2016 https://sencanada.ca/en/Content/Sen/Committee/421/LCJC/05ev-52465-e?utm_source=chatgpt.com
Published prior to September 1, 2016: https://www.canada.ca/en/office-federal-ombudsperson-victims-crime/recommendations-recommandations/2016-17/20160901.html
Circa 2017: No Appointee at the Federal Office of the Ombudsperson for Victims of Crime —
For nearly a year from November 15, 2017 until October 01, 2018 the Federal Government allowed the National Ombudsman for Victims of Crime office sat without an appointee. A listening ear would have heard a lot in that timeframe; now there’s a lot of ground to make up. It’s time for the Federal Government to step up their support, correct and amend the denials and nationalize victims support programs.
Circa 2018: Heidi Illingworth Appointed as the Third Federal Ombudsperson for Victims of Crime —
***
The deeply embedded systemic issues of discrimination and police bias, are being called out today through social-awareness campaigns, protests, and movements. More and more clearly it is coming to the attention of the mainstream what so many, have witnessed and experienced on a deeply personal and affecting scale. There are social-science studies, studies of epigenetics, and economic studies to confirm that which so many survivors and victims of crime and trauma viscerally live and breathe -- We need Canada's federal government to move as quickly as the data, and introduce legislation that follows the science and supports its citizens at a national level.