Delhi | 25°C (windy)

A New Era for Victim Justice: Sudbury MP's Bill Demands Mandatory Restitution from Criminals

  • Nishadil
  • September 25, 2025
  • 0 Comments
  • 3 minutes read
  • 2 Views
A New Era for Victim Justice: Sudbury MP's Bill Demands Mandatory Restitution from Criminals

A pivotal moment for victim rights is unfolding in Canadian Parliament as Sudbury Member of Parliament Viviane Lapointe champions a groundbreaking private member’s bill designed to fundamentally alter how crime victims receive justice. Bill C-373, officially known as "An Act to amend the Criminal Code (restitution for victims of crime)," seeks to make financial restitution from offenders not just an option, but a mandatory default within the legal system, unless a judge presents compelling reasons otherwise.

For too long, the path to recovery for victims of crime has been riddled with additional burdens.

Under the current Criminal Code, restitution orders are largely discretionary. This means that judges or Crown attorneys often have to proactively seek these orders, a step that, unfortunately, is frequently bypassed due to various pressures or oversight. Consequently, many victims, already grappling with the emotional and physical scars of their experiences, are left to bear the financial costs of crime – from property damage and lost wages to medical expenses – without any compensation from the very individuals who caused their suffering.

Bill C-373 proposes a radical yet logical shift: it would enshrine in law that restitution must be ordered unless a judge explicitly states why it would be inappropriate.

This seemingly simple change carries immense weight. By making restitution the rule rather than the exception, the bill aims to eliminate the arbitrary nature of the current system, ensuring that victims' financial losses are systematically addressed during sentencing. It’s a move designed to hold offenders directly accountable for the tangible consequences of their actions, fostering a more equitable justice process.

The proposed legislation promises a profound impact on the lives of victims.

Beyond the immediate financial relief, the mandatory nature of restitution can offer a vital sense of justice and closure. It acknowledges the victim's suffering and places the responsibility squarely on the perpetrator, rather than leaving victims to navigate complex and often expensive civil litigation to recover their losses.

This bill is about more than just money; it's about restoring dignity and empowering those who have been wronged by crime.

While critics might raise concerns about the practicalities of collecting funds from offenders with limited assets, the bill's advocates argue that this is precisely where the system needs to evolve.

The onus should be on the justice system to find ways to ensure restitution is paid, rather than leaving victims to chase down compensation. Comparisons are often drawn to legal frameworks in other nations, such as parts of the United States, where mandatory restitution is a common and accepted practice, demonstrating that such a system can be effectively implemented.

The introduction of Bill C-373 has garnered significant support from victims' advocacy groups and legal experts who have long called for stronger protections and more robust compensation mechanisms.

It signifies a collective recognition that the current system is inadequate and that a legislative overhaul is necessary to prioritize the needs of those harmed by criminal acts. The bill had its initial hour of debate, marking the beginning of its journey through Parliament.

As Bill C-373 moves forward, it represents a beacon of hope for countless Canadians affected by crime.

It's a bold step towards a justice system that not only punishes offenders but also actively supports victims, ensuring that accountability extends to financial reparation and that the burden of crime is borne by those who commit it, not those who suffer from it. This is about reshaping Canadian justice to be more compassionate, more effective, and ultimately, more just.

.

Disclaimer: This article was generated in part using artificial intelligence and may contain errors or omissions. The content is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute professional advice. We makes no representations or warranties regarding its accuracy, completeness, or reliability. Readers are advised to verify the information independently before relying on