Justice Services, Economic Burden and Social Costs in Canada

4. Impacts and costs of justice problems in Canada

Abstract

This chapter examines the social and economic consequences of justice problems in Canada. It analyses the impacts associated with a range of justice problems, including crime victimisation and civil justice issues, and assesses how these impacts affect individuals, households and public institutions. The chapter considers both direct and indirect costs, including effects on health, well-being, employment and broader economic outcomes. The chapter also explores the relationship between justice pathways and the consequences of justice problems. By examining factors such as legal capability, access to assistance, dispute resolution and problem resolution, it provides a basis for understanding how different justice experiences can influence the severity and distribution of social and economic impacts.

4.1. Approach

In Canada as in other countries, available studies on the costs of justice problems are divided in two groups.

The first group addresses the personal costs of seeking to resolve a justice problem, relying primarily on surveys of the population (in particular LNS) or of users of justice services. In Canada, for instance, the Canadian Forum on Civil Justice produced a series of analyses on the personal expenses and cost-related challenges reported by respondents to the 2014 LNS.1 Semple (2015[1])reviewed the evidence on personal costs, whether monetary, time-related or psychological, collected as part of a national study on self-represented litigants. Internationally, the OECD White Paper of the Business Case for Access to Justice provided a first estimate of the costs of resolving justice problems across countries (OECD, 2019[2]). For this, the White Paper applied standardised cost assumptions to the impacts reported by respondents to the World Justice Project’s General Population Poll, a LNS conducted in 45 countries at that point in time.

Assessing the range of costs faced by individuals in trying to resolve their problems helps to identify the obstacles that people face on their paths to justice and to understand how these obstacles are harder to overcome for certain groups of population (Gramatikov, Barendrecht and Verdonschot, 2011[3]). In that regard, evaluations of personal costs prolong and complement the analyses of justice pathways presented in the previous section.

It should be noted that certain LNS-based studies have sought to appraise costs beyond those incurred by persons experiencing a justice problem, for instance those of additional social security expenditures; however, the methodology of these studies did not provide a comprehensive approach to the social costs of justice problems.2

The second group consists of the literature on the cost of crime, which applies a social welfare approach to the consequences of criminal acts, usually including responses by the criminal justice system. These studies draw from multiple sources of evidence on the incidence and consequences of crime, including crime victimisation surveys, judiciary and administrative records, jury awards and willingness to pay estimates, etc.3 In Canada, the Department of Justice has published several reports in recent years, reviewed hereafter, which apply this methodology to estimate the economic impact of different types of crime. The OECD study on the economic implications of crime in Thailand constitutes another recent contribution to this literature (OECD, 2025[4]).

The focus of this second group of studies is on the burden imposed on society by different types of crime, which can help inform investment or prioritisation choices in criminal policy. Personal costs are only one component of the social costs under consideration, and all personal costs are not deemed relevant from an aggregate societal standpoint.

A key distinction between the two approaches, in addition to the difference between the individual and the social perspective, resides in the subject of the cost assessment. In the cost of justice studies, the focus is on dispute resolution rather than the object of the dispute. In Gramatikov’s terms, “the costs of justice are defined as the resources which the user needs in order to travel from the beginning to the end of a path to justice (…) exclud(ing) the impact of the underlying social problem” (Gramatikov, 2009, p. 7[5]). Legal needs surveys usually implement this definition by asking people first to focus on problems that were difficult to resolve (thereby excluding cases in which there was no significant dispute) and then to report the impacts and costs that they experienced while trying to resolve their problem.

The cost of crime literature, by contrast, is interested primarily in criminal acts per se and extends its analysis to the justice process essentially as a response to crime (Cohen, 2020[6]). The key motive of this interest is that the role of criminal justice is not simply to adjudicate criminal cases, but also, in doing so, to induce a deterrence effect meant to prevent further crimes (Becker, 1968[7]). It should be noted that this logic also applies to civil disputes: a central function of property, liability and contract law is indeed to provide incentives for people to comply with the existing laws and regulations (Shavell, 2004[8]). The social costs of the justice problems should therefore incorporate the impacts of non-compliance with existing laws and regulations in civil matters as well as for criminal offences, in both cases in addition to considerations of social costs related to problem resolution.

In jointly assessing the consequences of crime and response to crime, the cost of crime literature encompasses the costs of public resources used in sectors such as law enforcement, the administration of justice, the operations of courts and the correctional system, and victim support schemes. These costs are the results of policy choices and the effectiveness of these policies can be measured by the extent to which they manage to reduce the costs of crime itself.4

The present study seeks to draw from both of these approaches to provide a comprehensive assessment of the costs of justice problems. It evaluates the impacts and costs of justice problems in Canada from a social welfare perspective encompassing not only the consequences for the people directly experiencing justice problems, but also for third parties (e.g. employers) and for public resources (through justice and social welfare expenditures). It also extends the general methodology of cost of crime studies to civil disputes, considering both the costs of problem resolution and those of the underlying issue when relevant from a justice standpoint.

Box 4.1 provides additional details on the study’s assessment of impacts and costs.

The following subsections review the literature and present the study’s estimates of the impacts and costs of civil justice problems and crime victimisation in Canada. The final subsection discusses the evidence on the impact of justice pathways on the costs of justice problems.

Box 4.1. Methodology for an approach to the evaluation of social costs of justice problems

The final stage of the case study quantifies the impacts and costs of justice problems. Justice problems can be associated with a range of direct and indirect impacts and costs affecting the people involved, third parties and public resources.

The costs for the people involved in the problem might include:

• Health costs, including healthcare and mental health expenditures induced by the problem

• Lost productivity (wages, educational opportunities, contribution to household or community services) due to the consequences of the problem, including the opportunity costs incurred while trying to resolve the problem

• Expenditures on justice services (lawyer or legal advisor fees, mediator fees)

• Lost property (stolen or damaged belongings)

• Other costs, including intangible costs generated by the problem and its resolution (pain, stress and suffering, and damage to relationships), as well as costs of communication, transportation, temporary accommodation, financial costs, etc.

By contrast, individual contributions to the functioning of justice institutions (e.g. court attendance fees), as well as spending related to judicial sanctions such as fines and penalties, are considered as transfers to other actors and not included in social cost calculations (Becker, 1968[7]).

The costs for third parties include employer costs related to the loss of productivity of the people facing a justice problem, the costs of impacts on children of divorce, as well as broader societal costs such as those of impacts experienced by families and neighbours.

The costs for public resources finally include expenditures on law enforcement, courts and prosecution services, correctional facilities, legal aid, other justice services, social security and victim services.

The total costs of justice problems for society are the sum of these three components.

The study applied a range of methodological tools to estimate these cost components.

For civil issues, the study derived personal costs of problem resolution in terms of health and mental health expenses and lost productivity from the CLPS, acknowledging that this would lead to under-estimating the costs of cases where resolution was still ongoing at the time the survey was conducted. Costs for employers were derived from lost productivity by applying the marginal rate of return on labour for the Canadian economy. The average costs per reported problem were applied to the incidence data estimated in Section 2.

Estimates of the public cost of justice institutions included courts and legal aid expenditures. As the last comprehensive estimation of court expenditures at federal and provincial level in Canada dates from 2009, the figures were adjusted for the increase in the average length of cases (measured as the lag between initiation and first disposition) and for inflation between 2009 and 2021. After deducting the share attributable to criminal cases, estimated expenditures on civil cases were distributed between family and general civil cases on the basis of the number of new cases. Finally, the estimated expenditures on general civil cases were distributed between the relevant problem areas on the basis of the number of CLPS respondents having contacted a lawyer or the court to resolve their issue in each area.

The study separately estimated lost productivity, intangible costs and costs for public welfare systems related to incidents involving a breach of the law in the various problem areas based on sector-specific sources. Risks of double counting with lost productivity data reported in the CLPS were managed by excluding the latter. For instance, the study estimated lost productivity due to work injuries and diseases that involved noncompliance with safety regulations in 2021; to avoid any risk of double counting, the study excluded figures of lost productivity reported to the CLPS for problems of injury at work.

For criminal issues, the study relied on the detailed cost estimates conducted by Justice Canada on 2009 data, which it updated to 2019 on the basis on the difference in the number of cases, as well as increases in labour productivity (for productivity loss estimates), in prices (for all expenditures) and in the value of a statistical life (for intangible costs of fatalities) (Viscusi and Aldy, 2003[9]). As the Justice Canada studies focus on violent crime and spousal violence, the study complemented pre-existing evidence with new estimates of the value of lost property due to property crime (theft and vandalism, based on 2019 GSS data), as well as victim costs in terms of lost productivity (associated with employer losses) and intangible costs (pain and suffering) related to child victimisation.

The analysis was conducted at the level of detailed impact components which were then aggregated to provide a comprehensive picture of the social costs of justice problems.

Annex A provides further details on the cost estimation methodology.

Source: (Becker, 1968[7]; Viscusi and Aldy, 2003[9]).

4.2. Impacts and costs of addressing civil justice problems

Different rounds of legal needs surveys have investigated the costs incurred by respondents in addressing their justice problems. Based on data from the 2014 CFCJ survey, (Currie, 2016[10]) estimates that Canadians spent CAD 23 billion in relation to justice problems in the three years covered by the survey, which is translated into a cost of CAD 7.7 billion per year.5 As already explained, these aggregate personal costs comprise expenses such as lawyer fees and communication costs, which are netted out in a social cost approach.

This study used data from the 2021 CLPS, the 2025 NJS and judiciary sources to estimate the social costs of the process of problem resolution in the nine most significant areas of civil justice problems in Canada. These costs are related to the health and mental health expenditures reported by CLPS respondents confronted with a serious justice problem, the impact on their productivity and on their employer’s activity, expenditures on justice services (lawyer and mediator fees) and other costs (damaged property, transportation, communication, temporary accommodation, etc.), as well as public expenditures on courts, alternative dispute resolution mechanisms and legal aid. Court fees and fines are considered as transfers to other economic agents and therefore as neutral from a social cost standpoint. Table 4.1 below presents the results by problem areas and cost category.

Five areas generate problem resolution costs exceeding CAD 1 billion: family (and child custody) issues, medical treatment issues, will execution issues, employment issues and consumer issues. Family issues generate the largest resolution costs (close to CAD 1.7 billion), essentially related to the justice process (lawyer fees; public expenditure on courts, alternative dispute resolution, and legal aid). Medical treatment problems induce similar costs (close to CAD 1.4 billion), but these are almost exclusively personal costs related to the health, mental health and productivity impacts. The costs related to the resolution of employment issues (CAD 1.1 billion) result in large part from productivity impacts and court costs. The costs of will execution issues (CAD 1.2 billion) and consumer issues (CAD 1.0 billion) mostly consist of lost or damaged property and justice costs.

Table 4.1. Social costs of civil justice problems, 2021

In CAD million

Problem area	Personal costs					Employer costs	Public costs	Total costs
	Health	Productivity	Justice services	Other	Total
Civil justice problems	1 600	1 695	1 526	2 592	7 412	88	2 191	9 692
Consumer	14	81	189	398	682	4	181	1 041
Debt/ money	37	124	217	461	839	6	196	868
Discrimination	103	161	70	141	475	8	92	576
Employment	202	325	198	146	871	17	224	1 112
Family	135	108	340	228	811	6	882	1 698
Housing	28	137	140	443	748	7	157	912
Injury at work	244	227	77	160	708	12	185	904
Medical treatment	597	404	14	287	1 301	21	76	1 398
Will execution	239	128	282	328	977	7	198	1 182

Source: Authors’ calculations (see detailed sources in Annex A).

4.3. Impacts and costs of non-compliance in civil matters

The costs of civil justice problems are not only related to the resolution of problems, but also to the impacts generated by non-compliance with prevailing laws and regulations. The study was not able to find any published evaluation of these costs across problem areas. Upon reviewing the area-specific literature and data sources, it was possible to construct consistent cost estimates in two areas: workplace injuries and diseases and medical treatment issues. This comes in addition to criminal non-compliance, which is considered in the next subsection.

Workplace injuries and diseases and medical treatment issues are likely to represent the most impactful areas of non-compliance within civil issues, as both generate considerable health consequences, including numerous fatalities, every year (as the evidence reviewed hereafter demonstrates). Still, breaches of the law in other areas such as discrimination or labour relations are also likely to generate substantial social costs.6 Unfortunately, available data has not allowed to obtain reliable estimates of the number and impacts of such acts in the context of this study.

4.3.1. Injuries in the workplace

The Association of Workers' Compensation Boards of Canada (AWCBC) reports that a total of 277 217 lost time claims were accepted across industries in Canada in 2021, leading to CAD 9.1 billion payments in benefits, which consisted of 73% in wage loss benefits and the remaining 27% in healthcare and vocational rehabilitation benefits. In addition, 1 081 fatalities occurred that year due to occupational diseases and injuries at work.7

The data shows significant variation in injury rates based on reported incidents across sectors and provinces. One possible explanation for such variation is differences in compliance and enforcement effectiveness across jurisdictions.

Determining the share of these injuries that was caused by non-compliance with occupational health and safety (OHS) regulations is methodologically complex, due to both under-reporting and challenges in attribution. Canadian workplace safety research indicates that up to 40% of workplace injuries could be unreported (Foster and Barnetson, 2016[11]).

International research on workplace safety enforcement effectiveness provides indirect evidence of the relationship between compliance and injury prevention. A systematic literature review examining occupational health and safety regulatory enforcement found “strong evidence” that inspections with penalties are effective in reducing workplace injuries (Tompa et al., 2016[12]). The reviewed studies include an analysis of injury data in Pennsylvania concluding that inspections with penalties led to 19-24% decrease in total injuries in the two years following enforcement action (Haviland et al., 2012[13]). An evaluation of randomised workplace safety inspections in California, also included in the systematic review, found 9% reduction in injuries and 26% reduction in injury costs among inspected firms (Levine, Toffel and Johnson, 2012[14]). However, a Canadian study examining Alberta's inspection system found mixed results, with transportation firms experiencing a 28% decrease in claim rates after multiple inspections, while construction firms actually experienced a 12% increase in their claim rate in the first-year post-inspection (McLeod et al., 2024[15]).

Considering the available evidence on the rate of non-reporting of workplace injuries and on the effect of OHS inspections on injury rates and lost-time claims, the study conservatively assumed that 20% of workplace injuries – and the same share of injury-related benefit payments and fatalities – in Canada could be attributable to some form of non-compliance with health and safety regulations.

4.3.2. Medical treatment issues

Medical negligence occurs when healthcare providers fail to meet the accepted standard of care resulting in injury or harm to patients. For an error to be considered negligent, it is usually considered that it must demonstrate a breach of the duty of care owed to the patient, a direct causal link between the breach and the injury, and failure to meet the standard expected of a reasonably competent practitioner.

Determining the precise share of medical treatment issues attributable to negligence or regulatory non-compliance in Canada requires careful examination of the relationship between adverse events preventability and legal standards of negligence.

Research indicates that probably no more than one in seven adverse events in medicine result in a malpractice claim, suggesting that many errors, while harmful, do not meet the legal threshold for negligence (Oyebode, 2013[16]). The concept of preventability provides the closest approximation to negligence in medical treatment issues.

In Canada, the landmark Canadian Adverse Events Study found that 7.5% of patients admitted to acute care hospitals in 2000 experienced at least one adverse event (Baker et al., 2004[17]). Of these adverse events, 36.9% were judged to be preventable, meaning they could have been avoided with different care decisions or adherence to established protocols. This translates to approximately 2.8% of all hospital admissions involving preventable adverse events. When extrapolated nationally, this suggests that of the approximately 2.5 million annual hospital admissions in Canada, between 52 100 and 85 700 preventable adverse events occur each year. The study estimated that between 9 000 and 24 000 deaths annually result from adverse events, with a significant portion being preventable. The study estimated that 37% of adverse events could be classified as highly preventable.

More recent studies specifically examining medication errors – which represent 24% of all preventable adverse events in Canada – show that 28% are preventable, with many resulting from substandard care (Oyebode, 2013[16]). The most common systems failures underlying clinical errors include failures in dissemination of drug knowledge and inadequate availability of patient information.

This literature suggests that it could be conservatively assumed that at least 15% of medical treatment issues in Canada are attributable to negligent practice.

Estimates of the cost of adverse events vary significantly depending on the methodology used. A comprehensive study from Ontario using administrative health data estimated that 5.9% of all acute hospital admissions in 2015-2016 resulted in the occurrence of harm (Tessier et al., 2019[18]) – a result that was not substantially different from the rate found 15 years earlier by the Adverse Events Study. The attributable cost for the Ontario health system was evaluated at CAD 1.1 billion, or around CAD 30 000 per event. This estimate, however, does not include elements such as the loss of productivity or intangible costs for the victim of the event.

Table 4.2. Costs of non-compliance in civil matters, 2021

In CAD million

Problem area	Personal costs			Employer costs	Public costs	Total costs
	Productivity	Intangible	Total	Productivity	Social security
Injury at work	1 339	1 088	2 427	58	487	2 972
Medical treatment	NA	6 983	6 983	NA	862	7 845

Source: Authors’ calculations (see detailed sources in Annex A).

4.4. Impacts and costs of crime

The Department of Justice Canada has published several reports estimating the economic impact of crime in Canada, each offering a snapshot of costs for different types of crime or across different years. The first study focused on spousal violence and estimated its total economic impact of at CAD 7.4 billion in 2009, equating to CAD 220 per capita and 0.5% of the country’s GDP (Zhang et al., 2012[19]). The report found that victim costs accounted for the largest proportion (80.7% or CAD 6.0 billion), encompassing elements like medical attention, lost wages, and pain and suffering. Third-party costs including social services and impacts on children exposed to violence represented 12.0% (CAD 889.9 million), while the justice system bore 7.3% (CAD 545.2 million). A significant part of the total (CAD 5.5 billion) consisted of intangible costs borne by victims related to pain suffering and loss of life or affection.

Building on the methodology of that first assessment, a second study analysed the costs of five specific non-spousal violent crimes (assault, criminal harassment, homicide, robbery, and sexual assault and other sexual offences) in 2009 (Hoddenbagh, Zhang and McDonald, 2014[20]) – so that the two studies together would provide an assessment of the costs of violent victimisation of adults in Canada. The study estimated the total cost of non-spousal violent victimisations at CAD 12.7 billion (CAD 376 per capita and 0.9% of GDP). Here, victim costs were also dominant at CAD 10.6 billion, followed by justice system costs at CAD 1.9 billion, and third-party costs at CAD 0.2 billion. Intangible costs similarly constituted the majority, accounting for 74% (CAD 9.4 billion) of the total, largely due to pain and suffering and loss of life.

More recently, a third study published by Justice Canada provided a comprehensive estimate for the overall costs of crime in 2014 – expanding on previous studies to also encompass non-violent crime (theft fraud and mischief) (Li, 2023[21]). The report estimated total tangible costs at CAD 28.7 billion and total intangible costs at CAD 14.5 billion, culminating in a grand total of CAD 43.2 billion for 2014 – equivalent to CAD 1 220 per capita and 2.4% of GDP. Consistent with the earlier reports, the study categorised costs into criminal justice system, victim, and third-party costs and emphasised the importance of intangible impacts such as pain and suffering and loss of life in the total economic burden generated by crime.

A common aspect of the methodology of all three studies is that they do not include the costs incurred by perpetrators, related in particular to the impact of incarceration on their health, mental health, productivity and quality of life. All three analyses also highlight limitations in data availability which lead to the exclusion of certain costs elements from the assessment.

Because of both of these factors, the results of the three studies can be considered to underestimate the true economic impact of crime in Canada.

By updating and complementing the estimates of Zhang et al. (2012[19]) and (Hoddenbagh, Zhang and McDonald, 2014[20]), this study provides an evaluation of the total costs of crime, including for the first time the costs of child victimisation, in Canada in 2019 (see Table 4.3; amounts are expressed in 2021 Canadian dollars (CAD) to ensure consistency with other cost estimates).

The total costs of criminal acts are estimated at CAD 37.2 billion, consisting principally of the costs of domestic violence (48%) and violent crime (45%).8 Property crime, despite its high level of incidence, generates only 8% of the total costs of crime – note, however, that this figure represents only the value of the stolen or damaged property and justice costs, as the study was not able to build consistent estimates of the impact of property crime on victims’ health, productivity and quality of life and on third parties. As these impacts are likely to be limited compared to the other components appraised in the study, the effect on the overall cost of crime estimate is likely to be marginal.

In line with previous estimates, intangible costs related to loss in the quality of life of victims and their relatives represent close to two thirds of the total cost of crime. Justice costs, productivity costs and loss of property represent the bulk of the remaining third.

Table 4.3. Costs of criminal justice problems, 2021

In CAD million

Problem area	Personal costs					Third party costs	Public costs			Total costs
	Medical	Productivity	Intangible	Property	Total		Justice	Victims services	Total
All crime	782	3 447	24 453	3 044	31 727	1 065	3 647	729	4 376	37 167
Domestic violence	320	2 711	11 682	433	15 146	913	610	656	1 266	17 325
Property crime	NA	NA	NA	2 214	2 214	NA	795	NA	795	3 009
Violent crime	462	736	12 771	397	14 366	152	2 243	73	2 316	16 833

Source: Authors’ calculations (see detailed sources in Annex A).

4.5. Aggregate costs of justice problems

Table 4.4 below presents estimates of the social costs of the most significant areas of justice problems in Canada based on the calculations presented in the previous subsections.9 Although largely conservative these estimates represent in total CAD 57 billion or 2.4% of the country’s GDP in 2021.

These findings underscore the high personal and societal costs of justice problems particularly in areas such as domestic violence and violent crime (representing 30% and 29% of the total respectively), medical treatment issues (16% of the total), injuries at work or in public places and property crime (respectively 6% and 5% of the total), as well as family issues (3% of the total). The justice system itself bears costs through increased demand for services, case backlogs, and the need for remedial interventions. The economic burden is particularly acute for the identified specific groups who are more likely to experience multiple and overlapping problems and have a harder time obtaining a resolution.

Table 4.4. Costs of justice problems, 2021

In CAD million

Problem area	Personal costs	Third party costs	Public costs	Total costs
Civil justice problems	16 596	146	3 541	20 282
Consumer	682	4	181	868
Debt/ money	839	6	196	1 041
Discrimination	475	8	92	576
Employment	871	16	224	1 112
Family	811	6	882	1 698
Housing	748	7	157	912
Injury at work	2 908	70	672	3 649
Medical treatment	8 285	21	938	9 243
Will execution	977	7	198	1 182
Criminal justice problems	31 727	1 065	4 376	37 167
Domestic violence	15 146	913	1 266	17 325
Property crime	2 214	NA	795	3 009
Violent crime	14 366	152	2 316	16 833
All selected justice problems	48 322	1 211	7 917	57 450

Source: Authors’ calculations (see detailed sources in Annex A).

4.6. The influence of justice pathways on the impacts and costs of justice problems

The moderating effects of legal capability, professional assistance, access to dispute resolution mechanisms and problem resolution on the costs of justice problems has been largely documented. In this subsection we present our estimates of the effects of justice pathways on the costs of justice problems.

Using the 2021 CLPS data, we calculated the contribution of each step in justice pathways (legal capability, professional assistance, access to dispute resolution, resolution of problem) to the probability of experiencing six categories of impacts (job loss, lost housing, extreme stress, physical health expenses, mental health expenses, and high financial costs) taking into account the effect of other relevant factors (see details in Box 4.2).

The results of the estimation are presented in Table 4.5. It should be emphasised that missing values in the table do not constitute evidence of the absence of causal effect, but rather that a significant effect could not be isolated based on the CLPS data alone, considering potential reverse causality.

For instance, it is quite plausible that access to professional assistance does reduce the likelihood of experiencing negative impacts, but that the prospects of negative impacts increase recourse to professional assistance at the same time, so that no significant effect can be observed in aggregate. These results should therefore be interpreted as evidence of the effects of justice pathways on negative outcomes based on LNS data, complementing other findings from the literature.

Table 4.5. Effects of justice pathways on the probability of experiencing different types of impacts

% change in probabilities

Impact category	Legal capability	Professional assistance	Dispute resolution	Resolution of the problem
Job loss	-	-	-	-
Lost housing	-	-	-	-
Extreme stress	-10%	-	-	-11%
Physical health expenses	-	-	-	-25%
Mental health expenses	-16%	-	-18%*	-25%
High financial costs	-19%	-	-	-

Note: All results were significant at 95% level except when marked with an asterisk (93%).

Source: Authors’ calculations (see detailed sources in Annex A).

We find that legal capability, access to dispute resolution and the effective resolution of problems substantially reduce the likelihood of impacts such as extreme stress and mental health expenses. People with legal capability also have almost 20% less chance to undergo high financial costs when trying to resolve their justice problem.

Our results converge with a large body of evidence showing that the lack of access to justice and unresolved problems often lead to cascading effects, including deteriorating health, family breakdown, loss of housing, and social exclusion.10

Box 4.2. Methodology for assessing the effect of justice pathways on the impacts and costs of justice problems

The final model discussed in this study evaluates the effect of justice pathway variables (legal capability, professional assistance, access to dispute resolution, and resolution of problem) on the probability of experiencing six categories of impacts (job loss, lost housing, extreme stress, physical health expenses, mental health expenses, and high financial costs) as reported in the CLPS, after controlling for all relevant covariates (men/women, education, Indigenous identity, minority status, and location, as well as the justice problem area).

This model isolates to the extent possible the relationship between justice pathways and justice problem impacts from external influences and provides an appropriate setup for testing alternative hypotheses:

• Whether positive justice pathways lead to a reduction in the experience of impacts (by enabling people to resolve their problems more effectively)

• Whether on the contrary impacts of problems determine justice pathways (by giving people additional incentives to develop legal capability, use professional assistance or dispute resolution mechanisms, or manage to resolve the problem)

The first hypothesis is consistent with a negative correlation between justice pathway variables and the experience of impacts (positive pathways reduce impacts), the second with a positive (impacts lead to progress in justice pathways). It is plausible that in some cases the two influences are at play at the same time and the estimates measure their mixed effect.

We find significant and substantial effects of legal capability, problem resolution and, to a lesser extent, access to dispute resolution in reducing the probability of experiencing negative consequences of justice problems. In two cases we found significant positive coefficients, which are indicative of a causal influence of impacts on justice pathways; these are not reported in Table 4.5, which focuses on the effect of justice pathways.

References

[30] Agan, A. et al. (2023), “Misdemeanor prosecution”, The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol. 138/3, pp. 1453-1505, https://doi.org/10.1093/qje/qjad005.

[17] Baker, G. et al. (2004), “The Canadian Adverse Events Study: the incidence of adverse events among hospital patients in Canada”, Canadian Medical Association Journal, Vol. 170/11, pp. 1678-1686, https://doi.org/10.1503/cmaj.1040498.

[7] Becker, G. (1968), “Crime and punishment: An economic approach”, Journal of political economy, Vol. 76/2, pp. 169-217, https://www.jstor.org/stable/1830482.

[31] CFCJ (2016), Everyday legal problems and the cost of justice in Canada, Canadian Forum on Civil Justice, https://cfcj-fcjc.org/sites/default/files//docs/AGE%20-%20Everyday%20Legal%20Problems%20and%20the%20Cost%20of%20Justice%20in%20Canada.pdf.

[29] Chalfin, A. and J. McCrary (2017), “Criminal deterrence: A review of the literature”, Journal of Economic Literature, Vol. 55/1, pp. 5-48, https://doi.org/10.1257/jel.20141147.

[6] Cohen, M. (2020), The Costs of Crime and Justice, Second edition, Abingdon, Oxon; New York, https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429431562.

[10] Currie, A. (2016), “Nudging the Paradigm Shift: Everyday Legal Problems in Canada”, SSRN Electronic Journal, https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2825507.

[28] Currie, A. (2009), The Legal Problems of Everyday Life: The nature extent and consequences of justiciable problems experienced by Canadians, Department of Justice Canada, https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/csj-sjc/jsp-sjp/rr07_la1-rr07_aj1/rr07_la1.pdf.

[27] Doleac, J. (2018), Strategies to productively reincorporate the formerly-incarcerated into communities: A review of the literature, Institute of Labor Economics, Bonn, https://jenniferdoleac.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/Doleac_ReentryReview.pdf.

[26] Farrow, T. and L. Jacobs (2020), The Justice Crisis: The Cost and Value of Accessing Law, UBC Press, https://www.ubcpress.ca/asset/56500/1/9780774863599_excerpt.pdf.

[25] Farrow, T. and L. Jacobs (2020), “The monetary costs of everyday legal problems and accessing access to justice”, in Farrow, T. and L. Jacobs (eds.), The Justice Crisis: The Cost and Value of Accessing Law, UBC Press, https://www.ubcpress.ca/asset/56500/1/9780774863599_excerpt.pdf.

[11] Foster, J. and B. Barnetson (2016), Health and Safety in Canadian Workplaces, Athabasca University Press, https://doi.org/10.15215/aupress/9781771991834.01.

[5] Gramatikov, M. (2009), “A framework for measuring the costs of paths to justice”, The Journal Jurisprudence, Vol. 2/1, pp. 111-147, https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1279397.

[3] Gramatikov, M., M. Barendrecht and J. Verdonschot (2011), “Measuring the Costs and Quality of Paths to Justice: Contours of a Methodology”, Hague Journal on the rule of law, Vol. 3/2, pp. 349-379, https://doi.org/10.1017/S1876404511200101.

[13] Haviland, A. et al. (2012), “A new estimate of the impact of OSHA inspections on manufacturing injury rates, 1998–2005”, American Journal of Industrial Medicine, Vol. 55, pp. 964-975, https://doi.org/10.1002/ajim.22062.

[20] Hoddenbagh, J., T. Zhang and S. McDonald (2014), An Estimation of the Economic Impact of Violent Victimization in Canada, 2009, Department of Justice Canada, https://justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/cj-jp/victim/rr14_01/rr14_01.pdf.

[24] Khorrami, M. and L. Paquin-Marseille (2025), “Disparities in decision and sentencing outcomes between Indigenous accused and White accused in adult criminal court, 2016/2017 to 2020/2021”, Juristat, Vol. 1/37, https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/en/pub/85-002-x/2025001/article/00001-eng.pdf?st=oxZvPhsp.

[14] Levine, D., M. Toffel and M. Johnson (2012), “Randomized government safety inspections reduce worker injuries with no detectable job loss”, Science, Vol. 336/6083, pp. 907-911, https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1215191.

[21] Li, T. (2023), Costs of Crime in Canada 2014. Department of Justice Canada, Department of Justice Canada, https://canada.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/jr/ccc2014/docs/rsd_2023rr-costs-of-crime-2014_eng.pdf.

[15] McLeod, C. et al. (2024), “The impact of regulatory workplace safety inspections on workers’ compensation claim rates”, American Journal of Industrial Medicine, Vol. 67/10, pp. 877-887, https://doi.org/10.1002/ajim.23640.

[4] OECD (2025), “Access to justice and the economic implications of crime and violence in Thailand”, OECD Working Papers on Public Governance, No. 86, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/5cc2bb9c-en.

[2] OECD (2019), Building a Business Case for Access to Justice, OECD White Paper in collaboration with the World Justice Project.

[32] OECD (2019), Equal Access to Justice for Inclusive Growth: Putting People at the Centre, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/597f5b7f-en.

[23] Oreopoulos, P. (2011), “Why Do Skilled Immigrants Struggle in the Labor Market? A Field Experiment with Thirteen Thousand Resumes”, American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, Vol. 3/4, pp. 148–71, https://doi.org/10.1257/pol.3.4.148.

[16] Oyebode, F. (2013), “Clinical errors and medical negligence”, Medical Principles and Practice, Vol. 22/4, pp. 323-333, https://doi.org/10.1159/000346296.

[1] Semple, N. (2015), “The cost of seeking civil justice in Canada”, The Canadian Bar Review, Vol. 93/3, pp. 639-673.

[22] Shan, R. and M. Li (2023), Core housing need transitions of racialized communities in Canada, Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, https://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2023/schl-cmhc/NH21-16-2023-eng.pdf.

[8] Shavell, S. (2004), Foundations of Economic Analysis of Law. Belknap Press, Harvard University Press, https://www.hup.harvard.edu/books/9780674011557.

[18] Tessier, L. et al. (2019), “The impact of hospital harm on length of stay, costs of care and length of person-centred episodes of care: a retrospective cohort study”, Canadian Medical Association Journal, Vol. 191/32, https://doi.org/10.1503/cmaj.181621.

[12] Tompa, E. et al. (2016), “A systematic literature review of the effectiveness of occupational health and safety regulatory enforcement”, American journal of industrial medicine, Vol. 59/11, pp. 919-933, https://doi.org/10.1002/ajim.22605.

[9] Viscusi, W. and J. Aldy (2003), “The Value of a Statistical Life: A Critical Review of Market Estimates Throughout the World”, Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Vol. 27/1, pp. 5-76, https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1025598106257.

[19] Zhang, T. et al. (2012), An Estimation of the Economic Impact of Spousal Violence in Canada 2009, Department of Justice Canada, https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/cj-jp/fv-vf/rr12_7/rr12_7.pdf.

Notes

← 1.  The overall results of the survey are presented in (CFCJ, 2016[31]). For an overview of CFCJ’s Cost of Justice project (2011-2018), see https://cfcj-fcjc.org/cost-of-justice/publications/. See also (Farrow and Jacobs, 2020[26]; Farrow and Jacobs, 2020[25]).

← 2.  See (OECD, 2019[32]) for a review and discussion.

← 3.  See (Cohen, 2020[6]) for a general introduction and review of the US cost of crime literature.

← 4.  The effect of crime prevention or response policies has to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis through rigorous impact assessments. The estimates provided by cost of crime studies can inform such assessments, but it cannot serve as a substitute for them. See, e.g. (Agan et al., 2023[30]; Chalfin and McCrary, 2017[29]; Doleac, 2018[27]).

← 5.  The calculation implicitly assumes that each reported problems happens only once and does not relate to chronic or repetitive conditions over the survey period. See Box 2.2 of Chapter 2.

← 6.  For instance, there is evidence of widespread acts of unfair treatment in Canada. Oreopoulos (2011[23]) sent randomly manipulated resumes to online job postings in Toronto and found that applicants with foreign experience or foreign-sounding names were three times less likely to be called in for an interview than those with English names. Shan and Li (2023[22]) observe that racialised groups have substantially higher chances of experiencing persistent core housing needs than the white majority and calculate that two-thirds of the gap is not explained by factors such as location, income or immigrant status. Such treatment can even extend to the justice system itself – Khorrami and Paquin-Marseille (Khorrami and Paquin-Marseille, 2025[24]) show that after conviction, Indigenous defendants are 45% more likely than White defendants to receive a custodial sentence when offence severity is held constant.

← 7.  AWCBC, Detailed Key Statistical Measures Report (https://awcbc.org/data-and-statistics/key-statistical-measures/detailed-key-statistical-measures-report).

← 8.  If all estimates reviewed in this subsection are expressed in 2021 Canadian dollars (CAD), the study’s figures are higher than the sum of Zhang et al. (2012[19])’s and (Hoddenbagh, Zhang and McDonald, 2014[20])’s and lower than Li (2023[21])’s. These deviations can be due to methodological differences or to changes in the number of crimes, as some types of crime have been on a downward trend in the last decade, while others have increased.

← 9.  Box 4.1 and Annex A provide additional details on the method for aggregating these estimates, in particular on the management of potential double-counting.

← 10.  See in particular (Currie, 2009[28]).