Bill S-236 amends the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights to expand and operationalize victims’ entitlements in federal matters. It removes the 'on request' condition for certain information rights, creates a statutory right to tailored legal, social, medical and psychological services, strengthens reparations (including access to restorative justice and restitution orders) and adds an entitlement to assistance in enforcing restitution.
Beyond substantive rights, the bill forces institutional change: it directs the Minister of Justice to produce mandatory training for criminal-justice actors, to draft a detailed implementation framework (with minimum standards, public awareness, and measures for parole participation), and to table and publish those materials within fixed timelines. The package increases federal responsibilities and creates new interfaces with provincial justice systems, victims’ organizations and the Federal Ombudsperson for Victims of Crime.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill removes the 'on request' qualifier for several information rights, creates a statutory right to access legal, social, medical and psychological services, expands reparations to include restorative justice and restitution orders, and requires assistance to enforce restitution. It also mandates training for justice-system employees and directs the Minister of Justice to produce a national implementation framework with defined components and reporting deadlines.
Who It Affects
Federal criminal-justice authorities (RCMP, federal prosecutors, federal corrections, Parole Board), the Department of Justice, the Federal Ombudsperson for Victims of Crime, victims’ service providers and victims themselves; it also creates obligations that will intersect with provincial justice systems and victim-support organizations.
Why It Matters
This bill moves victims’ rights from aspirational language toward operational obligations at the federal level, embedding service standards, enforcement assistance and institutional training into statute. For practitioners, it signals likely new reporting, compliance and coordination requirements and a tighter role for the Federal Ombudsperson.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill begins by amending the core information rights in the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights so that victims are to receive certain information without having to ask for it. That change shifts the administrative posture for federal authorities from reactive (responding when approached) to proactive (providing information as a matter of course), and it applies to information about investigations, proceedings and the offender or accused.
Next, the bill adds an explicit right to access support and assistance services tailored to victims’ needs—legal, social, medical and psychological—which places a statutory duty on federal actors to ensure availability or pathways to those services in matters under federal jurisdiction. It also broadens the Act’s reparations regime by adding access to restorative justice programs and by preserving the court’s obligation to consider restitution orders; the bill further creates a right to assistance in entering and enforcing restitution orders, which recognizes enforcement gaps that often frustrate monetary remedies.On implementation, the bill instructs the Minister of Justice to develop training on victims’ rights for any person employed by an authority that plays a role in implementing those rights; the training must be produced within 180 days and refreshed at least every three years.
Employers subject to federal jurisdiction must onboard employees into that training within three months and re-train every three years. A transitional clause requires current employees to receive the training within one year of the provision coming into force.Finally, Part 2 compels the Minister to develop an implementation framework for rights under federal jurisdiction.
That framework must set out mechanisms for assessing victim services, remedies for failures to uphold victims’ rights, minimum service standards, a national awareness campaign, measures to improve victim participation in criminal processes and parole, steps to strengthen the Federal Ombudsperson’s independence, and any additional legislative amendments the Minister deems necessary. The Minister must table the framework in Parliament within one year of royal assent, publish it online within 10 days of tabling, and submit a five-year effectiveness report thereafter.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill removes the 'on request' phrase from the Act’s information rights (sections 6–8), so specified information must be provided without a victim having to ask.
It adds a statutory right to access tailored legal, social, medical and psychological services (new section 13.1).
Reparations are expanded to include access to restorative justice programs and explicit consideration of restitution orders by the court, plus a new right to assistance enforcing restitution (sections 16 and 17.1).
The Minister of Justice must develop victims-rights training within 180 days; federal authorities must train relevant employees within three months of hire and every three years, and current employees must be trained within one year of the section coming into force.
The Minister must table an implementation framework in Parliament within one year of royal assent and publish it within 10 days, with a mandated five-year follow-up report assessing effectiveness.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Makes certain information rights proactive
The bill replaces the introductory language of sections 6, 7 and 8 to eliminate the 'on request' qualifier. Practically, that requires federal authorities to provide the specified information as part of their processes rather than waiting for victims to ask. Agencies will need to map what information is in-scope and update intake, notification and privacy procedures to deliver it without creating safety or confidentiality risks.
Statutory right to tailored support and assistance services
New section 13.1 gives victims a statutory entitlement to legal, social, medical and psychological services suited to their needs. The provision does not itself create new funding streams, but it compels federal actors to ensure pathways to those services in federal matters — for example by contracting providers, coordinating referrals, or establishing service standards in the implementation framework.
Expands reparations: restorative justice, restitution and enforcement assistance
Section 16 inserts access to restorative justice programs into the reparations rubric and preserves the court’s duty to consider restitution orders. Section 17.1 adds a right to assistance to have restitution orders entered and enforced. These changes push beyond mere court consideration toward tangible steps to secure reparative outcomes, but they also raise questions about which authorities will carry enforcement costs and how provincial enforcement mechanisms will interoperate with federal obligations.
Centralizes complaints review authority
The amendment rewrites subsection 25(2) so victims who exhaust an agency-level complaint mechanism can bring their complaint to an authority designated by Governor in Council, rather than to 'any authority that has jurisdiction.' The change centralizes review responsibilities at the federal level and creates discretion for the executive to designate a single or limited set of review bodies, which may streamline or bottleneck escalation depending on the designation.
Mandates training for criminal-justice employees and transitional deadlines
Section 30 tasks the Minister of Justice with developing victims-rights training within 180 days and requires review and updating at least every three years. Authorities within federal legislative scope must ensure employees who implement victims’ rights receive training within three months of hire and triennially thereafter; the Minister must make the training available to provincial employees. A transitional rule requires existing employees to be trained within one year of the provision coming into force, creating a concentrated short-term compliance burden.
Implementation framework, tabling and follow-up reporting
Part 2 compels the Minister to draft a detailed implementation framework specifying assessment mechanisms for services, remedies for rights failures, minimum service standards, a national awareness campaign, parole- and sentencing-related mechanisms to improve victim participation, steps to strengthen the Federal Ombudsperson’s independence, and any additional legislative amendments the Minister sees as necessary. The Minister must table the framework within one year of royal assent, publish it within 10 days of tabling, and deliver an effectiveness assessment and recommendations within five years of tabling.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on this topic across all five countries.
Explore this topic in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Victims of crime in federal matters — They receive proactive access to information, a statutory entitlement to tailored support services, clearer paths to restorative justice and restitution, and assistance to enforce restitution.
- Victims’ service organizations and advocates — The law’s minimum standards and an implementation framework create leverage for standardized services, funding negotiations and a national public awareness campaign that can increase referrals and visibility.
- Federal Ombudsperson for Victims of Crime — The framework requires measures to strengthen the Ombudsperson’s independence and explicitly includes the office in consultations, which could increase its oversight role and profile.
Who Bears the Cost
- Federal departments and agencies that handle victims (RCMP, Public Prosecution Service, federal corrections, Parole Board) — They must change processes to provide information proactively, deliver or coordinate services, adopt training regimes, and comply with new complaint-designation structures.
- Department of Justice — Must design and maintain training, develop the implementation framework within tight deadlines, consult widely and prepare statutory reports, all of which require staff time and likely additional resources.
- Parole Board and correctional authorities — Required mechanisms to make the parole process more conducive to victims’ participation may demand procedural redesign, additional notification efforts and staff training, increasing operational costs.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central trade-off is between strengthening proactive, enforceable victims’ rights and the administrative, fiscal and constitutional limits of doing so: the bill creates statutory entitlements and deadlines that improve clarity for victims, but it pressures federal and provincial actors to deliver services, training and enforcement without prescribing the funding or intergovernmental mechanisms that would ensure consistent, safe and effective implementation.
The bill pushes federal authorities toward proactive delivery of information and services, but it does not create a new, dedicated funding stream for those services. That raises a practical implementation gap: statutory entitlements without clear resource allocations will force departments to reallocate funds or rely on provincial and non‑profit service providers, which may produce uneven access across jurisdictions.
The requirement to make training available to provincial employees recognizes provincial roles in administration of justice but stops short of imposing binding obligations on provinces; the framework relies on intergovernmental cooperation for consistent delivery.
Several provisions raise jurisdictional and operational tensions. Assistance to enter and enforce restitution interacts with provincial enforcement regimes and private collection infrastructures; without clear federal-provincial protocols, victims could face legal fragmentation.
The bill also grants the Minister discretion to include 'every additional legislative amendment' deemed necessary in the implementation framework, a phrasing that could enable far-reaching changes without separate legislative debate unless Parliament scrutinizes the tabled framework carefully. Finally, the removal of 'on request' improves accessibility but increases risks around safety and privacy if agencies do not build careful notification and redaction practices into new proactive information flows.
There's more to this law than the bill.
Codify Laws traces every connection across the legislative lifecycle.