September 4, 2026
Rohit Sohanlal (Author)

The Country the Statistics See and the Country Victims Experience

Canada’s public discussion of crime is dominated by statistics generated by police and other state institutions. Those statistics are indispensable: they allow governments to allocate resources, identify trends, compare jurisdictions and evaluate criminal-justice interventions. Statistics Canada reported that Canada’s police-reported crime rate fell by 2% in 2025 to 5,585 incidents per 100,000 population, while the Crime Severity Index declined by 5% to 75.0 and the Violent Crime Severity Index declined by 4% to 97.2. These are genuine declines in crime entering the police system. The difficulty arises when a measure of police-reported crime is implicitly converted into a measure of all crime occurring in Canadian society. The Crime Severity Index is constructed from police-reported offences; it therefore describes what the criminal-justice system recorded, not everything Canadians experienced. A decline in the recorded number is meaningful, but it is not, by itself, a complete measure of public safety. (Statistics Canada)

That distinction becomes particularly important in the area of sexual violence. Statistics Canada’s 2025 Survey of Safety in Public and Private Spaces found that approximately 2 million Canadians aged 15 and older experienced physical or sexual assault during the preceding twelve months, equivalent to 5.8% of the population. Sexual assault affected 2.2% overall, including 3.2% of women and 1.1% of men; among women aged 15 to 24, the prevalence reached 10.3%. Yet only 8.6% of victims said that their most serious sexual-assault incident had been reported to police, compared with 28% of victims of physical assault. (Statistics Canada, 2025) The difference is not a minor statistical qualification. It is the difference between what happens to people and what becomes visible to the state.

Statistics Canada’s earlier analysis of sexual-assault outcomes estimated approximately 940,000 sexual-assault incidents in 2019, but only about 6% were reported to police. The agency identified reporting itself as the largest point of attrition before the criminal-justice process could even begin. Among victims who did not report, substantial proportions cited the desire to avoid the hassle of dealing with police, concerns about the court process, perceptions of police bias, or the belief that the offender would not be convicted or adequately punished. (Statistics Canada, Criminal Justice Outcomes of Sexual Assault in Canada, 2015 to 2019) The same structural phenomenon appears in economic crime. Statistics Canada’s national fraud survey found that approximately 2.5 million Canadians, or 7.8% of the population aged 15 and over, experienced fraud during the preceding year, while only approximately 11% reported their most serious fraud incident to police. Victims were far more likely to report the incident to banks or other financial institutions, while some contacted the Canadian Anti-Fraud Centre. (Statistics Canada, Self-reported Fraud in Canada, 2019)

These figures establish a fundamental proposition: police-reported crime is a filtered measure of social reality. An incident must first occur; somebody must recognize and disclose it; the victim or another person must decide that approaching an authority is worthwhile; the information must reach police; police must record it; an investigation must occur; sufficient evidence must be assembled; and the matter must then survive prosecutorial and judicial scrutiny. A conviction is therefore the endpoint of an already filtered process, not the denominator from which the volume of underlying victimization can be inferred.

This distinction becomes particularly important whenever “crime is low” is used without specifying what is actually being measured. Canada may have comparatively low police-reported crime for particular offences while simultaneously having substantial levels of victimization that never enter police statistics. Both statements can be true because they describe different stages of the same system. The problem is not that the police number is false. The problem is that it can be mistaken for a complete description of Canadian social reality.

The more useful question is therefore not simply how many offences Canada records. It is how much harm occurs, how much of it is reported, how much is investigated, how much enters criminal proceedings, how much is pursued through civil or institutional processes, and how much disappears from every formal system. That is the difference between the statistical Canada and the experienced Canada.

What Would Canada’s Crime Statistics Look Like if Reporting Rose to 80%?

The magnitude of the reporting problem can be demonstrated through a deliberately simple counterfactual. Statistics Canada’s 2025 survey found that only 8.6% of victims reported their most serious sexual-assault incident to police. Assume, without changing the underlying level of victimization at all, that the reporting rate suddenly rose to 80%. Under the simplifying assumption that reporting is the only variable changing, police would theoretically receive approximately 9.3 times as many reports, because 80 divided by 8.6 is approximately 9.3. (Statistics Canada, 2025)

That calculation is not an estimate of Canada’s actual number of sexual assaults. The victimization survey and police administrative statistics have different definitions, denominators and methodologies, and the 8.6% figure relates to the most serious incident reported by survey respondents. Its value is illustrative rather than predictive. It nevertheless demonstrates an important property of crime statistics: the recorded rate is highly elastic to reporting behaviour. A very large change in the number appearing in police statistics can occur without a corresponding change in the amount of crime taking place.

If the reporting environment for sexual assault moved from 8.6% to 80%, a police-reported series could therefore appear to experience an increase of more than eightfold even if underlying victimization remained constant. An observer looking only at that administrative series could conclude that Canada had become dramatically more dangerous. The underlying social reality could be identical to what existed before. The state would simply have become better at seeing it.

The same counterfactual can be applied to fraud. Statistics Canada’s 11% police-reporting rate means that increasing reporting to 80% would theoretically produce approximately 7.3 times as many police reports, while a 90% reporting environment would produce approximately 8.2 times as many, assuming no change in underlying fraud. (Statistics Canada, 2019) Again, that is not an estimate of hidden fraud in Canada. It is a demonstration of the relationship between reporting and the size of the official record.

This produces a crucial paradox. A healthier reporting environment can initially make crime statistics look worse. When victims become more confident that police will believe them, evidence will be preserved, complaints will be investigated and institutions will take them seriously, more information enters the system. Police workloads increase because police are finally receiving more of the underlying victimization. Crime can appear to increase precisely because institutional visibility has improved.

The reverse is equally important. If victims lose confidence in police, stop reporting, or increasingly move their disputes into civil, workplace, regulatory or community processes, police statistics can decline even while the underlying level of victimization remains unchanged. A country can therefore become statistically quieter without becoming safer.

For that reason, interpretation of a falling crime rate requires more than comparison with the previous year. Policymakers should ask whether victimization declined as well; whether reporting changed; whether confidence in police changed; whether police recording practices changed; whether the composition of offending changed; and whether victims increasingly relied upon other accountability mechanisms.

The relevant policy question is consequently not merely how many offences police recorded, but how much victimization occurred, what proportion entered the criminal system, and where the remainder went. That is the beginning of a more accurate public-safety analysis.

The Denominator Problem: A Conviction Is an Endpoint, Not a Census

Canadian criminal statistics become particularly misleading when different stages of the justice process are treated as though they were interchangeable. A police incident is not the same thing as a victim. A victim is not the same thing as an allegation. An allegation is not the same thing as a charge. A charge is not the same thing as a conviction. A conviction is not the same thing as imprisonment. A civil claimant is not the same thing as a criminal complainant, and a claimant in a class proceeding is not the same thing as a person whose allegation has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

These distinctions are not technicalities. They determine what the numbers mean.

Statistics Canada’s sexual-assault analysis demonstrates the attrition directly. Of sexual assaults reported to police between 2015 and 2019, only a proportion resulted in charges, fewer proceeded to court, and fewer again resulted in a guilty finding. The attrition does not itself establish systemic failure. Criminal proceedings are supposed to exclude cases in which the evidence does not satisfy the criminal standard. Suspects may not be identifiable, witnesses may be unavailable, victims may choose not to proceed, evidence may be insufficient, or prosecutors may properly conclude that a charge is not sustainable. Those safeguards are fundamental to the rule of law.

The opposite inference, however, is equally important. The fact that a matter does not end in conviction does not permit society to infer that the underlying victimization never occurred. “Not reported” is not equivalent to “false”; “no charge” is not equivalent to “no harm”; and an acquittal is not a finding that society has no reason to take the underlying safeguarding concern seriously. At the same time, a civil claim, regulatory complaint or institutional allegation must never be represented as criminal guilt. A rigorous analysis has to preserve all of these distinctions simultaneously.

The public-policy problem therefore lies earlier in the process. If the majority of a particular category of victimization never reaches police, the number entering the criminal system necessarily provides only a partial picture. If some allegations then move into civil or institutional systems, a police-only analysis becomes even less complete. The country needs to understand the entire chain from victimization to disclosure, reporting, investigation, adjudication and remedy rather than treating the final criminal disposition as a census of everything that occurred.

Trust Is Not a Soft Variable: It Determines What the State Gets to See

The reporting gap in sexual violence cannot reasonably be explained simply by saying that victims choose not to “bother” with police. Statistics Canada identifies avoidance of the police and court process, perceptions of bias, expectations of inadequate punishment and other institutional concerns among the reasons victims do not report. (Statistics Canada) The Federal Ombudsperson for Victims of Crime provides an even more direct picture. In its survivor research, 47% of surveyed survivors said they had not reported sexual violence to police; among 433 non-reporting survivors, 93% feared police would not believe them and 89% said their decisions were influenced by observing how other survivors had been treated. The Office has also documented fear of retaliation, concerns about income and housing, family and community consequences, immigration-related vulnerability and other practical barriers. (Office of the Federal Ombudsperson for Victims of Crime)

These findings do not establish that Canadian police generally disbelieve sexual-assault victims. They establish something more important for public policy: the expectation of disbelief can suppress reporting regardless of what would actually happen in an individual case. A victim makes her reporting decision under uncertainty. She does not know in advance whether police will understand the allegation, whether the evidence will be preserved, whether the accused will be identified, whether prosecutors will proceed, or whether the process will ultimately justify the personal costs of entering it.

Institutional trust is therefore part of the crime-detection mechanism. If people believe that an institution will respond fairly, more information enters that institution. If they believe that the institution will not help them, information remains outside it. That affects not only individual cases but also intelligence, pattern recognition, repeat-offender identification, evidence preservation and resource allocation.

A reporting system can therefore produce its own feedback loop: low trust leads to low reporting, low reporting produces low institutional visibility, low institutional visibility contributes to an appearance of lower crime, and that apparent reduction can reduce the political urgency for institutional reform, leaving the underlying distrust intact. There is no manipulation of the statistics in such a process. The statistics simply contain less information about the phenomenon being measured.

Public confidence in policing should consequently be treated as a substantive public-safety variable rather than merely a communications or reputation issue. A police institution cannot investigate information it never receives, cannot connect victims whose experiences are never linked, and cannot identify patterns that remain distributed across private, civil and community channels.

The RCMP: When the Complaint Mechanism Itself Becomes Part of the Problem

The Royal Canadian Mounted Police presents an unusually important Canadian case because the organization responsible for enforcing the law has itself confronted evidence that institutional culture can influence the visibility of misconduct. The Merlo-Davidson proceedings concerned gender- and sexual-orientation-based harassment and discrimination involving women in the RCMP and related public-service workplaces over several decades. A total of 3,086 claims were filed, and the Independent Assessors determined that 2,304 claimants were entitled to compensation totalling approximately $125.4 million. The broader Bastarache process concluded that the organization had a toxic culture involving misogyny, homophobia, harassment and abuse of authority. Public materials concerning the process also recognize that many people with relevant experiences did not participate in the claims process. (Public Safety Canada; RCMP)

The point is not that RCMP members are generally abusive. Such a conclusion would be unsupported and would ignore the enormous number of officers who perform their duties professionally. The institutional lesson is narrower: the number of complaints visible inside an organization may not correspond proportionately to the amount of misconduct experienced by its personnel. If the internal reporting mechanism is distrusted, if reporting carries perceived career or social costs, or if complainants believe that the system will not produce meaningful change, the official record can remain substantially smaller than the underlying phenomenon.

The independent structure of the Merlo-Davidson process is important for the same reason. A victim cannot be expected to place complete confidence in the same institutional hierarchy she believes may have failed her. An independent mechanism changes the expected cost of reporting and can therefore reveal information that an internal mechanism did not capture.

This has a direct implication for the interpretation of institutional complaint statistics. A low number of complaints can mean that misconduct is rare. It can also mean that people are not reporting. The complaint count is therefore partly a product of organizational culture. Inside the RCMP, the problem was particularly significant because the institution receiving the complaint was also the institution possessing substantial information, hierarchy and reputational power.

Independent oversight becomes important precisely because an organization cannot always be expected to diagnose the full extent of its own structural problems through its ordinary internal reporting channels.

The Canadian Armed Forces: The Clearest Canadian Example of “Low Complaints, Large Problem”

The Canadian Armed Forces provides an even clearer illustration because the problem of under-reporting and institutional culture was explicitly identified through an external review. Justice Marie Deschamps’ 2015 review found an underlying sexualized culture within the CAF and concluded that cultural attitudes and expectations contributed to inappropriate sexual conduct. The review also identified lack of trust, fear of reporting, inadequate institutional responses and the possibility that the chain of command could suppress complaints rather than facilitate them. (Deschamps External Review)

The subsequent Statistics Canada 2022 survey makes the reporting problem measurable. Approximately 3.5% of Regular Force members experienced sexual assault during the preceding twelve months, including 7.5% of women and 2.8% of men. Yet only 21% of those who had experienced sexual assault reported it to someone in authority, down from 25% in 2018. Forty-one percent said that they did not report because they believed reporting would not make a difference, while 35% cited fear of negative consequences. Eighty-one percent of Regular Force members who had experienced sexual assault did not contact or use available services in at least one instance. (Statistics Canada; Department of National Defence)

The data also show that risk and reporting are not distributed randomly within the institution. Younger personnel, Indigenous members, members with disabilities and non-heterosexual members reported higher levels of sexual assault or sexualized misconduct, while prevalence also varied among the Canadian Army, Royal Canadian Air Force and Royal Canadian Navy. Such differences do not demonstrate that an entire branch or demographic group is inherently unsafe; they demonstrate that institutional conditions and vulnerability differ within the organization.

The most important lesson is the relationship between the prevalence data and the reporting data. If only approximately one-fifth of sexual-assault victims report to authority, the number of formal complaints cannot reasonably be used as a direct proxy for the amount of sexual assault occurring inside the institution. Justice Deschamps’ review reached the same conclusion in examining earlier CAF records: very low complaint numbers could create a misleading picture because substantial under-reporting existed.

This is the opposite of the common assumption that the complaint count is a neutral measurement of the underlying problem. In reality, the measurement system is partly endogenous to the institutional culture being measured. If members fear the chain of command, the chain of command receives fewer complaints. The organization may then interpret fewer complaints as evidence of a smaller problem even though the absence of complaints is partly produced by the very conditions under scrutiny.

That is a broader Canadian lesson. Wherever the mechanism used to measure misconduct is itself embedded within the institution being investigated, the reliability of the resulting complaint count depends heavily upon trust and independence.

Toronto Police: Capacity Matters, but Trust Still Matters

Toronto Police presents the corresponding problem from the civilian-policing side. The historical Jane Doe litigation remains an important Canadian example of institutional failure to recognize and respond adequately to a pattern involving sexual assault. The case became part of the broader examination of police assumptions concerning sexual-assault victims and the consequences of failing to connect apparently individual incidents into a serial pattern.

Toronto Police today possesses specialized Sex Crimes capabilities, including functions dealing with sexual offences, internet child exploitation and human trafficking. That specialization demonstrates institutional learning and significant investigative capacity. Recent investigations further demonstrate how sophisticated digital child exploitation can be. In a 2026 investigation, Toronto Police reported that a suspect allegedly used false online identities across platforms including Snapchat, Discord, Instagram, TikTok and Fortnite; forensic examination of devices reportedly led to identification of additional victims and dozens of charges. The allegations remain subject to the criminal process. (Toronto Police Service)

The existence of modern investigative capability, however, should not be confused with the existence of complete public confidence. A police service can possess specialized investigators, forensic technology and extensive legal authority while still confronting victims who do not believe that reporting will produce sufficient benefit to justify the costs. The two variables must therefore be measured separately.

For public policy, the relevant question is not simply whether police have the capacity to investigate a case once it arrives. It is whether the system is sufficiently trusted that victims will bring cases forward in the first place. If they do not, even the most sophisticated investigative infrastructure receives incomplete information.

Crime Against Children Shows Why Visibility Must Be Studied Before the Final Offence

Online child exploitation makes the difference between the underlying phenomenon and the state’s visibility into it especially important. Statistics Canada’s 2024 analysis found substantial growth in police-reported online sexual offences against children, including a 43% increase in online sexual offences and a 65% increase in luring. Luring represented approximately 74% of police-reported online sexual offences against children in 2024, and girls accounted for the majority of identified victims. (Statistics Canada)

The same data demonstrate the importance of distinguishing an incident from a cleared case. Statistics Canada reported that 94% of child sexual-abuse-material incidents and 76% of online sexual-offence incidents were not cleared by police in 2024, meaning that an accused person had not been identified or there was insufficient evidence to clear the incident under the relevant framework. A case not being cleared does not mean that the report was fabricated, nor does it mean that no harm occurred. It means that the criminal-justice process did not identify and establish an accused sufficiently to clear the incident.

That distinction is important because a single statistical line can conceal several very different realities. A child may have been victimized; the victim or another person may have reported it; police may have investigated; evidence may have been collected; the alleged offender may remain unidentified; and no criminal conviction may ultimately result. The incident nevertheless remains an instance of reported victimization. The absence of a conviction does not erase the earlier stages of the sequence.

This is also why child protection must be concerned with conditions preceding the final offence. The question is not merely who committed an act, but how the person obtained access, how trust was created, whether warning signs existed, who could see the communications, who possessed the evidence and which institution was capable of intervening before the conduct escalated.

Grooming Is About Access, Legitimacy and Dependency

Grooming is often narrowly framed as online sexual messaging between an adult stranger and a child. The underlying mechanism is broader. Grooming can involve the gradual construction of trust, legitimacy, emotional dependency, financial dependency or social isolation. The adult may be presented as a mentor, employer, landlord, coach, romantic partner, community intermediary or helpful authority figure. The relationship may begin with assistance rather than overtly sexual conduct. Dependence can be established before exploitation becomes visible.

The key resource acquired at the beginning is therefore often not sexual access but legitimacy. A trusted adult can enter environments that an obviously predatory stranger could not enter. Once an adult becomes important to a person’s housing, employment, education, finances, immigration circumstances, transportation or social belonging, the victim’s practical ability to resist can diminish even before overt coercion occurs.

That is why grooming is better understood as an architecture of access and dependency. The safeguarding question becomes not merely whether a criminal offence has already been committed, but how access was acquired, how trust developed, what dependency emerged, and which adults or institutions were in a position to detect the change.

The Federal Ombudsperson’s work identifies grooming and coercive dynamics as relevant to the reporting problem because victims may be conditioned to regard behaviour as normal, may fear retaliation, or may reasonably believe that disclosure will worsen their circumstances. (Office of the Federal Ombudsperson for Victims of Crime)

The preventive analysis therefore has to move upstream. Who introduced the adult into the victim’s life? Who vouched for him? Who granted access? Who supervised him? Who controlled the relevant records? And who could have intervened before the relationship became exploitative? These questions can reveal institutional vulnerabilities that a criminal charge alone cannot explain.

Networked Exploitation: When Responsibility Is Distributed Across Relationships

Some forms of exploitation are more intelligible when treated as networks rather than isolated offences. One person may establish contact, another may provide housing, another employment, another transportation, another social legitimacy, another financial support, while others may facilitate intimidation or reputation management. Not everyone in such a network necessarily commits the principal sexual offence, but the network can still create conditions that make exploitation easier to sustain and harder to detect.

This is the structurally important part of the debate about grooming gangs. There is legitimate reason to investigate cases in which several people knowingly participate in the exploitation of vulnerable victims, including by facilitating access, dependency, concealment or intimidation. There is no evidentiary basis for extending the conduct of a particular network into a claim that an entire ethnic, religious or immigrant community shares the network’s beliefs or practices.

The proper unit of analysis is therefore the network of access, dependency, secrecy and protection, not collective identity. Such structures can exist in criminal groups, workplaces, educational institutions, families, religious organizations, professional settings, online communities and other social environments. The common variables are power, opportunity, information asymmetry and the ability to influence whether a victim can safely report.

This approach also clarifies why “culture” should not be treated as a euphemism for ethnicity. Institutional culture consists of the norms and incentives that determine what is tolerated, what is reported, whose account receives credibility, who is protected, and what consequences follow from challenging the hierarchy. A community does not have to approve of abuse for its informal rules to make disclosure more difficult. It may only need to place a greater social cost on the person who speaks than on the person whose conduct is being challenged.

The International-Student Problem: When Housing, Employment and Immigration Become Instruments of Control

The reported exploitation of international students in Brampton demonstrates how vulnerability can arise where several forms of dependency overlap. Municipal discussions in 2024 considered the exploitation and trafficking risks facing international students, while reporting described cases in which students could be vulnerable because they depended on employment, housing or other forms of support. Global News reported the case of an international student identified by the pseudonym “Jassi,” who alleged that men threatened her with loss of tuition support and deportation unless she had sex with other men; The Kaur Movement was reported to have helped her leave the situation. These are reported allegations rather than judicial findings of guilt. (City of Brampton; Global News)

The structural issue is the conversion of ordinary dependency into coercive leverage. A young person arriving in Canada may be far from family, unfamiliar with Canadian institutions, economically dependent, concerned about immigration status and reliant upon other people for housing or employment. The person exploiting that vulnerability does not necessarily need to use physical force initially. The threat that housing, income, educational progress or immigration security can be withdrawn may itself create a powerful constraint.

That mechanism closely resembles the architecture of grooming. Access is obtained; dependency develops; resistance becomes more difficult; and the victim may become increasingly reluctant to involve outside authorities because the person she must report is also the person who controls a resource on which her immediate life depends.

The policy implication is that safeguarding cannot begin only when a criminal offence is reported. Institutions serving newcomers need mechanisms capable of recognizing coercion produced through multiple dependencies, including employment, housing, immigration anxiety and social isolation.

The Kaur Movement and the Fragmentation of Victim Protection

The Kaur Movement illustrates an increasingly important feature of Canada’s response to sexual violence: community-rooted organizations can become trusted intermediaries between vulnerable people and formal institutions. Its stated mandate focuses on domestic violence, sexual assault and related harmful practices, with a strong South Asian community orientation, while the organization expressly states that it supports victims of all ethnicities, religions, gender identities and sexual orientations. Its services include confidential support, counselling and referrals, assistance concerning shelter and housing, legal-aid information and support through court processes. (The Kaur Movement Foundation)

Its community orientation is also explicit. The organization seeks volunteers with Punjabi-language ability and an understanding of issues affecting the South Asian community. That does not establish that white women, Muslims, Black women or members of other communities are excluded from assistance; the organization’s published mandate says the opposite. What it demonstrates is that specialized organizations often develop expertise around particular linguistic, cultural and social environments.

That specialization can be beneficial because culturally competent support can reduce barriers to disclosure and help victims who do not trust generic institutions. The potential difficulty is not exclusion by itself but fragmentation of visibility. A South Asian survivor may approach a South Asian organization; a Muslim survivor may approach a Muslim women’s organization; an Indigenous survivor may approach an Indigenous organization; a Black survivor may prefer a Black-led service; and another victim may approach police, a lawyer, a hospital, a university or an employer. Each route may be legitimate, but each can generate a different administrative record.

The state can consequently end up with multiple partially independent views of victimization. One victim becomes a police report, another a confidential community-service contact, another a civil proceeding, another a regulatory complaint, another an employment complaint and another nothing at all. The underlying social phenomenon may be similar while the statistical visibility is radically different.

This is the visibility-distribution problem. Canada can possess increasingly sophisticated victim-support services while still lacking an integrated understanding of how many victims enter each system, why they choose one route over another, and how often allegations move between systems.

The answer is not to dismantle culturally specific organizations. It is to recognize their place within a broader accountability architecture and improve the anonymized, privacy-respecting measurement of how the systems interact.

The White-Victim Question: What the Evidence Actually Supports

It is tempting to ask whether identity-specific advocacy means that racialized women receive organized assistance while white women are left without equivalent support. The available evidence does not support that categorical conclusion. The Kaur Movement expressly states that it supports victims regardless of ethnicity or religion, and public demographic data concerning major civil proceedings are generally incomplete or protected. It would therefore be methodologically unsound to infer the racial composition of plaintiffs from names, photographs or media coverage.

Statistics Canada’s 2025 national data provide a more reliable picture. Past-year sexual-assault prevalence among racialized women was 2.7%, compared with 3.2% among non-racialized, non-Indigenous women; Statistics Canada reports that the difference was not statistically significant. South Asian women were at 2.8%, Chinese women at 2.2%, Black women at 3.1% and Filipino women at 2.5%, with none statistically different from the non-racialized, non-Indigenous reference population. Indigenous women, however, experienced substantially higher prevalence at 5.7%, with First Nations women at 6.9%. (Statistics Canada, 2025)

The evidence therefore does not support a model in which sexual violence is essentially a minority-community problem. Nor does it support the opposite claim that racialized communities experience no special vulnerabilities. Sexual violence exists across communities, while prevalence, reporting behaviour and institutional trust vary.

The more useful distinction is therefore not white versus racialized but visible versus invisible. A wealthy, well-connected white woman may possess enormous institutional visibility; a poor white woman may possess little. A well-connected South Asian woman may have immediate access to legal and community assistance; a newly arrived international student may be dependent upon an employer, landlord or partner. An Indigenous survivor may face both higher victimization rates and historical reasons for distrust of state institutions. A woman working inside a police or military organization may be reluctant to report someone within the same hierarchy.

What matters for equality is the ability to convert an experience of harm into institutional action.

Money helps.

Housing helps.

Language helps.

Immigration security helps.

Family support helps.

Legal knowledge helps.

Community support helps.

Confidence in institutions helps.

A victim who lacks those resources may disappear from every formal dataset.

That is the deeper equality problem.

Muslim Women Demonstrate How Identity Can Alter Institutional Visibility in Opposite Directions

The Federal Ombudsperson’s work concerning Muslim women provides a particularly important illustration of how identity can distort institutional responses in opposite directions. Research cited by the Office found that Muslim women can encounter paternalistic assumptions that they are inherently oppressed and require rescue, while in other circumstances their experiences of violence can be “othered” as something supposedly expected within Muslim culture. The first response can produce excessive paternalism; the second can produce dismissal or minimization. Both undermine neutral adjudication because cultural identity becomes a substitute for evaluating the individual facts. (Office of the Federal Ombudsperson for Victims of Crime)

This matters because cultural explanations can fail in two opposite ways. A police or institutional actor may assume that the victim is oppressed because of her culture and consequently treat her differently from other victims. Or the actor may assume that violence is culturally normal and therefore discount the complaint. Neither response is consistent with impartial justice.

The broader research base concerning Muslim women in Canada similarly demonstrates that representations of the “oppressed Muslim woman” can themselves become forms of racialized othering. Black survivors can encounter different stereotypes, including assumptions that portray them as promiscuous, angry or manipulative, which can undermine credibility and discourage disclosure. The Federal Ombudsperson has also documented intersectional barriers affecting Indigenous, disabled, 2SLGBTQIA+ and other marginalized survivors. (Office of the Federal Ombudsperson; Nagra)

The lesson is not that race, religion or culture explains sexual violence. The lesson is that identity can influence how a victim is perceived, where she seeks assistance, whether she trusts the institution, and whether her experience becomes visible to the state. Equal justice therefore does not require ignoring identity; it requires ensuring that identity informs culturally competent support without determining the substantive standard by which evidence is evaluated.

Civil Litigation: A Parallel Accountability System That Does Not Appear in the Crime Rate

When victims do not pursue a criminal route, they do not necessarily abandon accountability. They may consult lawyers, pursue civil actions, seek injunctions, approach professional regulators, file workplace complaints, use university procedures, make human-rights applications or participate in class proceedings. These mechanisms serve different legal purposes. A civil claim does not establish criminal guilt; class certification does not determine the truth of every allegation; a settlement does not necessarily establish every pleaded fact; and a regulatory or institutional finding is not equivalent to a criminal conviction.

Nevertheless, the existence of these alternative mechanisms creates a fundamental measurement issue. A serious allegation can become visible in a civil or institutional proceeding without becoming a police-reported offence. If victims increasingly use these routes because they have little confidence that criminal reporting will produce meaningful protection, the police database can become progressively less representative of the serious misconduct actually being contested in society.

This does not mean that victims use civil litigation deliberately to “lower” crime statistics. There is no basis for attributing such an intention generally. The point is institutional: different accountability routes generate different statistical footprints. A police file is one kind of record. A civil statement of claim is another. A professional complaint is another. A community organization may possess another body of information.

Canada’s information problem is therefore not merely one of under-reporting. It is one of cross-system fragmentation. The country does not have a sufficiently integrated picture showing how frequently people move from criminal reporting to civil litigation, from community support to police reporting, or from institutional complaints to court proceedings.

That missing map matters because a society can underestimate the scale of serious misconduct if it sees only the part that reaches police.

The Information-Asymmetry Problem: Institutions Often Know What Victims Cannot Know

The institutional relationship is further complicated by unequal access to information. An individual victim ordinarily possesses knowledge of her own experience. The institution may possess the records needed to determine whether that experience was isolated or part of a broader pattern: schedules, surveillance footage, emails, employee records, prior complaints, training documentation, access logs, disciplinary histories and internal investigations.

That creates a structural asymmetry. The victim’s evidence is primarily experiential; the institution’s evidence can be structural.

In a spa, the employer may know who worked during a particular shift, whether previous complaints were made and what surveillance exists. A university may know the history of supervision and previous complaints involving a professor. A police service may possess databases containing comparable reports. The RCMP may possess recruitment and medical-examination records. The military may possess unit-level information and chain-of-command records. The ordinary victim generally does not possess these systems.

This does not mean institutions should be presumed culpable. It means the accountability system should recognize the asymmetry and ensure that an institution cannot become the sole authority deciding what its own information means, particularly when it has reputational or financial reasons to minimize an allegation.

Independent oversight, disclosure mechanisms and properly designed investigations exist partly to bridge this gap.

Nordik Spa: When One Allegation Raises an Institutional Question

The allegations concerning Nordik Spa Village illustrate why pattern recognition matters without establishing that every allegation is true. Global News reported in 2025 that more than 20 women had come forward with allegations of sexual assault involving massage therapists at the Quebec spa and that lawyers were seeking authorization for a class proceeding. A woman identified in the proposed proceeding alleged that she had been sexually assaulted during a massage treatment. The allegations remain allegations, and a proposed class proceeding is not itself a finding of criminal or civil liability. (Global News)

The significance lies in the possibility of aggregation. A single allegation can appropriately be investigated as an individual event. A number of similar allegations involving different employees can raise a second-order institutional question: whether there were warning signs, whether prior complaints existed, whether supervision was adequate, how employees were screened and trained, whether reporting mechanisms functioned, whether evidence was preserved, and whether the institution had sufficient systems to identify patterns.

Those questions do not presume liability. They recognize that institutional risk cannot always be understood by analysing incidents independently. A pattern may be invisible when each complaint is considered in isolation and obvious once the allegations are examined collectively.

The case consequently illustrates why civil proceedings, independent investigations and institutional data can reveal dimensions of a problem that a single police statistic cannot.

The RCMP Medical-Examination Litigation: When Institutional Power Is Built Into the Relationship

The Federal Court’s certification of a class proceeding concerning RCMP applicant medical examinations provides another example of institutional power embedded in the relationship. The proceeding involved allegations concerning sexual assault, battery and inappropriate or unnecessary procedures during mandatory medical examinations by physicians designated in connection with the RCMP recruitment process. The RCMP expressly stated that certification did not determine the merits of the allegations. (Royal Canadian Mounted Police)

The structural issue is the relationship itself. The organization controlled access to a career opportunity, the examination was part of a mandatory process, applicants were dependent upon the process, and the institution possessed the relevant policies and records. The individual applicant possessed her experience but not necessarily the information needed to determine whether similar complaints existed or how the institution had managed them.

Such circumstances demonstrate why safeguarding cannot depend solely upon the victim’s ability to reconstruct an institution’s internal record. Where access to information and institutional authority are highly unequal, independent oversight and disclosure mechanisms become central components of accountability.

Large Civil Claims Demonstrate Social Scale, Not Criminal Guilt

The Heyder-Beattie class proceedings concerning sexual misconduct in the Canadian Armed Forces and Department of National Defence demonstrate why civil claims can reveal a scale of institutional experience that criminal statistics alone cannot show. The federal government’s materials state that the settlement provided up to approximately $900 million to eligible claimants and that more than 25,000 claimant applications were received by the February 2023 deadline, with more than 22,000 claims approved for initial payment and/or paid by April 2024. (Government of Canada)

Those figures must be interpreted carefully. They are not 25,000 criminal convictions, they do not establish 25,000 identified offenders, and they do not mean that every allegation was proven beyond a reasonable doubt. They demonstrate something different: a very large population asserted experiences within an institutional civil-accountability framework that cannot be reconstructed simply by counting criminal prosecutions.

The RCMP Merlo-Davidson process provides another example, with 3,086 claims and 2,304 claimants determined eligible for compensation totalling approximately $125.4 million. (Public Safety Canada) Again, the number should not be converted into a criminal count. Its significance lies in showing how institutional harm can become visible through a different mechanism.

The public therefore needs both types of evidence. Criminal statistics indicate what the criminal system establishes. Civil and institutional data can reveal the scale and persistence of experiences that exist outside that narrow endpoint.

Civil Justice Is Also Unequally Accessible

It would nevertheless be a mistake to assume that every person who does not report to police simply turns to civil litigation. Civil litigation can be expensive, procedurally difficult and financially risky.

The 2026 Ontario Superior Court decision in Jane Doe v. His Majesty the King in Right of Ontario, B.H., and Toronto Police Services Board, 2026 ONSC 4437, illustrates the problem. Following a ten-day trial, the court found that the plaintiff had been sexually assaulted by B.H., but the plaintiff did not establish the institutional liability asserted against Ontario. Ontario sought substantial costs, and the court ultimately fixed those costs at $275,000. The decision does not establish that civil justice is unfair. It demonstrates the economic reality of pursuing complex litigation.

A person without substantial resources may reasonably conclude that the possibility of an adverse costs award is too great. The existence of a civil cause of action therefore does not mean that the average victim possesses practical access to that remedy.

This is why “just sue” is not a sufficient response to dissatisfaction with criminal justice. Criminal investigations are publicly financed and can employ police powers that ordinary individuals do not possess. Civil plaintiffs can instead face the task of financing lawyers, identifying defendants, establishing liability and obtaining evidence from institutions that may possess far greater resources.

Legal availability and practical accessibility are not the same thing.

The Most Dangerous Culture Is Not Necessarily One That Approves of Abuse

The word “culture” is often used so vaguely that it becomes either meaningless or inflammatory. In an institutional analysis, however, culture has a more precise meaning: the informal expectations and incentives that influence what people consider acceptable, whom they believe, whom they protect, what they report, what they tolerate and what happens to people who challenge the hierarchy.

The Canadian Armed Forces’ external review demonstrated that formal rules can coexist with cultural norms that discourage reporting and permit inappropriate conduct to persist. The RCMP’s experience provides a related lesson: written prohibitions do not automatically prevent harassment when institutional incentives, reporting structures and informal expectations operate differently in practice.

An organization can formally prohibit sexual harassment while making a complainant fear dismissal or career consequences. A university can have a detailed misconduct policy while imposing procedures that students experience as burdensome or unsafe. A family can condemn sexual assault while insisting that police not be involved. A community can reject abuse in principle while prioritizing the reputation of a powerful person when a real allegation threatens the group’s standing.

The formal rule tells us what the organization says.

The reporting pattern can reveal what the organization actually makes possible.

This is why culture can influence crime visibility even when nobody openly supports the underlying offence. A system does not have to say “abuse is acceptable.” It may only need to make disclosure more costly than silence.

The Role of Women in Maintaining or Challenging These Systems Is More Complicated Than a Simple Victim-Perpetrator Model

Social systems can sometimes reproduce themselves through the behaviour of people who do not benefit directly from the underlying misconduct. Women can advise younger women to remain silent, forgive, preserve family reputation, avoid scandal, protect a man’s career or avoid police involvement. That does not necessarily mean that these women support abuse. They may themselves be responding to powerful social sanctions and attempting to manage the consequences within the constraints available to them.

Nevertheless, the institutional effect can be the same. The victim becomes responsible for preserving social stability while the accused retains social standing, the institution avoids disruption and the police receive no report. The statistical record remains smaller not because the harm necessarily disappeared, but because the information never crossed the boundary into the criminal system.

This is one reason culture should be analyzed in terms of incentives rather than declarations of belief. Silence does not require approval. It can be produced by social, economic and institutional costs.

The Real Divide May Be Invisible Victims Versus Visible Victims

The public debate about racialized and white victims risks missing the deeper structural problem. A wealthy, well-connected white woman may possess substantial institutional visibility, while a poor white woman may have very little. A South Asian woman with strong family and community support may have immediate access to lawyers and advocates, while a newly arrived international student may be dependent upon the very employer, landlord or partner she would need to report. A Muslim woman may trust a specialized organization that understands her circumstances; another may have no such intermediary. An Indigenous survivor may experience higher victimization and historical reasons to distrust state institutions. A woman working within police or military structures may be reluctant to report another person within the same hierarchy.

The important variable is therefore often not racial identity itself but the ability to convert private harm into institutional action.

Economic resources increase that capacity. So do housing security, immigration security, language, family support, legal knowledge, community support and confidence in authorities. Someone lacking those resources can disappear from police data, civil proceedings and institutional complaints simultaneously.

This is the more important equality problem because two people can experience comparable harm and produce entirely different records. One becomes a criminal case. Another becomes a confidential community interaction. Another becomes a civil claim. Another becomes an employment complaint. Another tells a friend. Another says nothing.

The underlying experience may be similar while the administrative visibility differs dramatically.

Canada May Be Developing Many Protection Systems Without One Shared Measurement System

Canada now has a broad and increasingly specialized victim-support infrastructure. There are police services, victim-service organizations, Indigenous-led services, Black-led services, Muslim organizations, South Asian organizations, hospitals, universities, regulators, employers, human-rights institutions and civil courts. This specialization can represent institutional progress because it allows services to address barriers that generic systems may not recognize.

The corresponding risk is fragmentation.

A victim can move through one system without entering another. Police may not know that a lawyer has heard similar allegations. An employer may not know that a regulator is investigating related conduct. A community organization may encounter several survivors without possessing the authority or information necessary to connect their experiences to an institutional pattern. A civil lawyer may discover a pattern through multiple claimants who never made corresponding police reports.

The solution is not to collapse every form of assistance into one centralized database. Confidentiality, privacy, privilege and due process are essential. The objective should instead be to develop anonymized and aggregated measurement capable of showing how victims move through the accountability ecosystem.

Canada should know how many serious allegations never reach police; how many move from community support to civil litigation; how many complainants use several mechanisms; which populations report unusually low confidence; which institutions experience substantial internal complaint burdens with little corresponding police reporting; how often multiple complainants emerge only after legal counsel becomes involved; and how often people become more willing or less willing to report after observing the treatment of other survivors.

These questions would reveal something a single crime-rate number cannot: where the justice system loses visibility.

A New Measure: The Accountability-Visibility Gap

Canada’s public-safety debate would benefit from a complementary concept alongside the Crime Severity Index: the Accountability-Visibility Gap.

The purpose would not be to create a new measure of guilt. It would be to measure the distance between estimated victimization and the portion that becomes visible to particular accountability institutions.

The first pathway would track:

estimated victimization → disclosure → police reporting → investigation → charge → prosecution → conviction.

Parallel pathways would include:

victimization → family/community disclosure → victim-service organization → lawyer → civil proceeding

and:

victimization → employer/university → institutional investigation → regulatory or disciplinary process.

The objective would be to identify where serious harm becomes invisible.

A category with a 10% reporting rate should not be interpreted in the same way as one with an 80% reporting rate. A population that rarely reports because of distrust presents a different public-safety problem from a population that rarely reports because victimization is genuinely rare. An institution that generates thousands of civil claims but few criminal reports presents a different measurement challenge from an institution with almost no complaints of any kind.

Such a measure would not eliminate ambiguity. It would make the ambiguity visible.

That would be an improvement.

What an 80% Reporting Environment Would Tell Us About Canada

The scale of the reporting gap becomes clearer when expressed as a daily comparison. In 2025, Canadian police recorded 37,278 sexual-assault offences, equivalent to approximately 102 police-recorded sexual assaults per day. Statistics Canada’s population survey, however, found that 2.2% of Canadians aged 15 and older experienced sexual assault during the preceding 12 months. Applied to Canada’s approximately 35.4 million residents aged 15 and over, that implies roughly 778,000 people experiencing sexual assault during the year, or approximately 2,130 people per day. These are not directly equivalent statistical units—police statistics count incidents recorded by police, while the victimization survey estimates people experiencing victimization—but the scale of the difference illustrates how much sexual violence exists outside the police-recorded system.

Now apply the reporting counterfactual. If the underlying level of victimization remained unchanged but the proportion of victims whose most serious incident was reported to police rose from 8.6% to 80%, the police-visible portion would rise dramatically. On the illustrative victim-equivalent calculation, approximately 778,000 victims per year would produce about 622,000 reported victim-equivalents, or approximately 1,706 per day, instead of the roughly 102 police-recorded sexual-assault offences per day observed in the official offence statistics.

That does not mean Canada would suddenly have created 1,600 additional sexual assaults every day. The underlying victimization in the counterfactual has not changed. What has changed is the proportion entering the formal reporting system. A large statistical increase could therefore represent a large increase in visibility rather than a large increase in victimization.

The distinction is fundamental. The observed police figure tells us how many sexual-assault offences came to police attention and were recorded. The victimization survey tells us that the underlying population experiencing sexual assault is substantially larger. The gap between those two measurements is not, by itself, proof that every unreported victim would have generated a charge or that every survey-reported experience corresponds to a separately chargeable Criminal Code offence. It does, however, demonstrate why police-recorded crime cannot be treated as a census of sexual victimization.

Using Statistics Canada’s 2025 figures:

• Police-reported sexual assault: 36,284 Level 1 + 865 Level 2 + 129 Level 3 = 37,278 offences in 2025, or about 102 police-recorded sexual assaults per day.
• Canada had about 35.4 million people aged 15+ in 2025 (41.65 million total population less 6.26 million aged 0–14).
• 2.2% of the 15+ population experienced sexual assault in the preceding 12 months, implying approximately 778,000 people, or roughly 2,130 people per day.
• Only 8.6% said their most serious sexual-assault incident was reported to police.

The comparison

2025	Per year	Per day
Police-reported sexual-assault offences	37,278	102/day
Estimated people experiencing sexual assault	~778,000	~2,130/day
Illustrative 80% reporting scenario	~622,000	~1,706/day

The “Low Crime = Safe Country” Fallacy

Canada’s current national statistics do not support the simplistic proposition that Canada is universally a high-crime country. Overall police-reported crime declined in 2025, and that fact should be acknowledged. At the same time, those statistics do not justify the opposite conclusion that Canada is comprehensively safe simply because the recorded rate is relatively low.

The victimization data tell a more complex story. Approximately 2 million Canadians experienced physical or sexual assault during the preceding year. Sexual assault affected 2.2% of Canadians aged 15 and older, while only 8.6% of victims reported their most serious incident to police. Fraud affected approximately 2.5 million Canadians in the 2019 national survey, while only a small minority reported their most serious fraud incident to police. Online child sexual exploitation presents rapidly changing challenges, particularly involving luring and digital access. Major Canadian institutions have experienced serious sexual-misconduct problems sufficient to require external reviews, class proceedings and large compensation mechanisms.

These facts can coexist with declining aggregate police-reported crime because they are not measuring the same denominator.

The mistake is to treat a low number of recorded incidents as though it necessarily proves a low level of underlying victimization.

It does not.

Who Saves Canadian Girls and Boys When the Institutions Fail?

The question ultimately becomes moral as well as statistical.

Who protects a child who does not know how to report?

Who protects a student whose education, housing or immigration circumstances depend upon the person exploiting her?

Who protects a soldier who believes that challenging the chain of command will damage her career?

Who protects a police employee who distrusts the organization receiving the complaint?

Who protects a customer who trusts an institution because that institution has represented the person providing an intimate service as safe?

Who protects the woman who knows that reporting may expose her to family or community pressure?

The answer cannot be “the police” alone. Police are indispensable, but the majority of sexual-assault victims do not report their most serious incident to police. It cannot be “the family” alone, because families can protect victims but can also create pressure to remain silent. It cannot be “the community” alone, because communities can provide extraordinary support but can also have their own hierarchies and reputational incentives. And it cannot be “the civil courts” alone because civil litigation can be financially and procedurally inaccessible.

The appropriate response is therefore institutional redundancy with independent oversight. Victims need multiple routes to safety, but those routes should ultimately connect to impartial adjudication and public accountability. The state should not force an individual to possess the social power of the person she is confronting before the law will protect her.

A Muslim woman, Sikh woman, Black woman, Indigenous woman, white woman, newcomer, employee, soldier, student, patient or child should be able to obtain culturally competent assistance without receiving a different standard of truth. Cultural competence should improve access to justice; it should not determine the substantive standard by which the evidence is judged.

The ultimate purpose of an accountability system is to prevent one institutional failure from becoming a victim’s permanent fate.

Conclusion: The Missing Number Is Not the Crime Rate. It Is the Gap Between Harm and Visibility

The central Canadian problem is therefore not that police statistics are necessarily wrong. They measure something real: crime entering the police system. The problem is that Canada can easily ask those statistics to describe something much larger.

A police-reported crime statistic tells us what entered police records. A victimization survey tells us considerably more about what happened to people. A civil lawsuit tells us what some people elected to pursue through the courts. A class proceeding can reveal institutional patterns that isolated criminal files may not reveal. A regulator may possess another record. A community organization may possess another. A family may possess another. And many incidents remain invisible to every institution.

The difference among these systems is the Accountability-Visibility Gap.

The gap can be enormous in sexual violence because only 8.6% of victims in the 2025 national survey reported their most serious incident to police. It is also substantial in fraud, where only approximately 11% of victims reported their most serious incident to police in the 2019 national survey. It matters in child exploitation, where digital access allows offenders to operate across jurisdictions and platforms and where large proportions of reported cases do not result in identified offenders. It can become particularly dangerous where victims depend upon institutions, employers, landlords, romantic partners, community intermediaries or immigration-related relationships.

The Canadian Armed Forces has already demonstrated that low reporting can coexist with serious institutional misconduct. The RCMP’s Merlo-Davidson process demonstrated that thousands of experiences of harassment and discrimination could emerge through an independent claims mechanism that was not captured by ordinary internal complaint statistics. Toronto’s history demonstrates that even a sophisticated police institution can fail to recognize patterns of sexual violence and subsequently build specialized capabilities in response.

The Kaur Movement and other community-rooted organizations demonstrate another part of the picture. They can provide a trusted route into assistance where victims are reluctant to approach generic institutions. Their existence is not evidence that one community possesses sexual violence as a uniquely cultural problem. Nor does the evidence support the proposition that white women are excluded from survivor services or that major civil proceedings are demonstrably composed predominantly of white victims. The more consequential question is whether Canada has created a fragmented environment in which different groups encounter different pathways into accountability and consequently become differently visible to the state.

The evidence concerning Muslim women, Black survivors, Indigenous survivors and other marginalized groups reinforces this point. Identity can affect trust, institutional interpretation, credibility, access to services and the willingness to report. But that does not mean that identity determines criminality. It means that equal protection sometimes requires culturally competent support precisely so that the ultimate legal standard can remain universal.

The central question should therefore move beyond whether Canada’s crime rate is “high” or “low.” Those words are incomplete without specifying the measurement system.

The better question is:

How much serious harm occurs, how much reaches police, how much reaches other accountability institutions, and how much disappears between them?

The 80% counterfactual shows why this matters. If sexual-assault reporting rose from 8.6% to 80% while underlying victimization remained unchanged, police could theoretically receive approximately 9.3 times as many reports. The statistics could appear catastrophic even while the underlying crime rate remained exactly the same. Conversely, if trust collapsed and reporting declined, the statistics could improve while the social problem remained unchanged.

The statistics would worsen. The measurement would improve.

That is the paradox policymakers need to understand.

The same principle applies to fraud. Moving from an 11% police-reporting rate to 80% would theoretically produce more than seven times as many police reports without increasing the amount of fraud by one incident. Again, the number would rise because visibility improved, not because offending increased.

This is why Canada should resist two simplistic conclusions. Rising police statistics do not necessarily mean society has suddenly become more dangerous, and declining police statistics do not necessarily mean society has become safer. Both conclusions require information about reporting, victimization, detection and institutional trust.

The real issue is therefore institutional visibility.

If a victim does not trust police, the state does not receive the information.

If a complaint remains inside a workplace, the national crime database may never see it.

If a victim pursues civil litigation, the criminal statistic does not necessarily change.

If several survivors disclose to a community organization, a pattern may exist without becoming visible to police.

If an institution protects its reputation rather than identifying a pattern, the number of formal complaints may remain low.

If a powerful network controls access, housing, employment, money or social legitimacy, the victim may have no safe route to the state at all.

These are not merely individual failures.

They are questions about the architecture of Canadian institutions.

The state should therefore measure the entire pathway from victimization through disclosure, reporting, investigation, prosecution, civil proceedings, institutional complaints, regulatory processes, community assistance and abandonment. It should measure why victims choose one route instead of another. It should examine whether reporting patterns differ systematically across groups, not to assign criminality to particular communities but to determine whether some populations are becoming less visible to the institutions that protect them.

It should also measure institutional trust.

Because public confidence is not simply a matter of reputation.

It is part of the mechanism by which society discovers crime.

The ultimate measure of public safety is consequently not whether Canada’s crime database contains a reassuring number.

It is whether an ordinary individual—a child, student, newcomer, employee, patient, soldier, police employee, customer or isolated victim—can confront a person with greater wealth, status, institutional access or social power and reasonably expect an independent authority to find out what happened.

A functioning rule-of-law system is designed precisely to make social power less important than legal rights.

When that system works, a victim does not need the right family, the right community, the right lawyer or the right connections.

When confidence in it weakens, people begin constructing parallel systems of protection. They turn to community organizations, civil lawyers, informal networks and private warnings. Some leave institutions. Some abandon complaints. Some stop reporting altogether.

The criminal statistics then become smaller.

The underlying harm does not necessarily become smaller.

That is the paradox Canada needs to confront.

The question is not merely how much crime Canada records. It is how much crime Canada fails to see.

Until that gap between victimization and institutional visibility is systematically measured, Canada will know with considerable precision what enters its databases while remaining substantially less certain about what is occurring outside them.

The statistics may describe the Canada that reports.

Public safety requires understanding the Canada that does not.

References

References

1. City of Brampton. (2024). Hidden but thriving: Brampton’s international students and human trafficking [Committee of Council materials]. https://www.brampton.ca/EN/City-Hall/Council-Committees/meetings-agendas/Documents/consolidated-minutes/2022-2026%20Committee%20of%20Council%20Minutes.pdf
2. Department of National Defence, & Statistics Canada. (2023). 2022 Survey on Sexual Misconduct in the Canadian Armed Forces. https://www.canada.ca/en/department-national-defence/news/2023/12/department-of-national-defence-and-the-canadian-armed-forces-address-the-statistics-canada-2022-survey-on-sexual-misconduct-in-the-canadian-armed-f.html
3. Deschamps, M. (2015). External review into sexual misconduct and sexual harassment in the Canadian Armed Forces. Department of National Defence. https://www.canada.ca/en/department-national-defence/corporate/reports-publications/sexual-misbehaviour/external-review-2015.html
4. Global News. (2024). International students are being sexually exploited, trafficked, says Brampton mayor. https://globalnews.ca/news/10827073/international-students-sexually-exploited-trafficked/
5. Global News. (2025). More than 20 women allege sexual assault at Quebec spa, class action requested. https://globalnews.ca/news/11346094/20-women-allege-sexual-assault-quebec-nordik-spa-class-action/
6. Government of Canada, Department of National Defence. (2019). Heyder Beattie final settlement agreement. https://www.canada.ca/en/department-national-defence/corporate/reports-publications/proactive-disclosure/secd-state-of-caf-19-april-2021/reference-material/heyder-beattie-final-settlement-agreement.html
7. Nagra, B. (2018). Cultural explanations of patriarchy, race, and everyday lives: Marginalizing and “othering” Muslim women in Canada. Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs, 38(2), 263–279. https://doi.org/10.1080/13602004.2018.1466488
8. Office of the Federal Ombudsperson for Victims of Crime. (n.d.). Reporting to police and investigations. https://www.canada.ca/en/office-federal-ombudsperson-victims-crime/sissa-essas/reporting.html
9. Office of the Federal Ombudsperson for Victims of Crime. (2025). Rethinking justice for survivors of sexual violence: A systemic investigation. https://www.canada.ca/en/office-federal-ombudsperson-victims-crime/sissa-essas/rethinkingrepenser.html
10. Ontario Superior Court of Justice. (2026). Jane Doe v. His Majesty the King in Right of Ontario, B.H., and Toronto Police Services Board, 2026 ONSC 4437. https://www.minicounsel.ca/scj/2026/4437
11. Royal Canadian Mounted Police. (2021). RCMP medical examination class action—Notice of certification—Federal Court of Canada. https://www.canada.ca/en/royal-canadian-mounted-police/news/2021/07/rcmp-medical-examination-class-action—notice-of-certification—federal-court-of-canada.html
12. Royal Canadian Mounted Police, & Public Safety Canada. (2020). Merlo-Davidson settlement and Bastarache materials. https://search.open.canada.ca/qpnotes/record/ps-sp%2CPS-2021-2-QP-MPS-0019
13. Statistics Canada. (2023). Self-reported fraud in Canada, 2019. https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/89-652-x/89-652-x2023001-eng.htm
14. Statistics Canada. (2024). Criminal justice outcomes of sexual assault in Canada, 2015 to 2019. https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/85-002-x/2024001/article/00007-eng.htm
15. Statistics Canada. (2026a). Gender differences in experiences of violence and unwanted sexual behaviour in Canada, 2025. https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/85-002-x/2026001/article/00004-eng.htm
16. Statistics Canada. (2026b). Online child sexual exploitation in Canada, 2024. https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/85-002-x/2026001/article/00002-eng.htm
17. Statistics Canada. (2026c). Police-reported crime statistics in Canada, 2025. https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/daily-quotidien/260722/dq260722a-eng.htm
18. Statistics Canada. (2026d). Gender differences in experiences of violence and unwanted sexual behaviour in Canada, 2025: Table 4—Characteristics of the most serious incident of non-intimate partner physical and sexual assault, by selected characteristics of the population, 2025. https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/85-002-x/2026001/article/00004/tbl/tbl04-eng.htm
19. The Kaur Movement Foundation. (n.d.). About us. https://thekaurmovement.com/about/
20. The Kaur Movement Foundation. (n.d.). Get involved. https://thekaurmovement.com/volunteer/
21. Toronto Police Service. (n.d.). Sex crimes. https://www.tps.ca/organizational-chart/specialized-operations-command/detective-operations/investigative-services/sex-crimes/
22. Toronto Police Service. (2026). [Online child-exploitation investigation involving false online identities and multiple social-media platforms]. https://www.tps.ca/media-centre/news-releases/66543
23. Toronto Police Service, & Royal Canadian Mounted Police. (2026). Arrest in livestream child exploitation. https://www.tps.ca/media-centre/stories/arrest-in-livestream-child-exploitation/