The Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act
Passed into law in 2012, Secure Canada's marquee legislative achievement, the Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act (JVTA), allows victims of terrorism to sue civilly state and non-state sponsors of terrorism in Canada.
8 years of advocacy
2 state sponsors of terrorism designated
$11+ billion in damages awarded
The passage of the Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act (JVTA) was the result of an arduous eight-year campaign led by Secure Canada, formerly C-CAT, requiring eleven separate legislative attempts and the dedication of multiple lawmakers across party lines. It was endorsed by former Prime Minister Stephen Harper, former Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff, and the late former NDP leader Jack Layton.
In 2011, the government incorporated the JVTA provisions into Bill C-10, the omnibus Safe Streets and Communities Act, securing its passage in 2012. The legislation enabled the lifting of state immunity from Iran and Syria, allowing their designation as State Supporters of Terrorism. The passage of the bill deliberately coincided with the severing of diplomatic ties with these regimes.
The JVTA has been reaffirmed repeatedly in landmark victories, including a $250 million judgment for Flight PS752 families. To date, over $11 billion in judgements have been awarded or recognized to terror victims under this seminal bill.
Notably, Canadian courts found the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) to be a terrorist entity and liable for acts of terrorism against Canadians under the JVTA well before Canada finally listed the IRGC as a terrorist entity in June 2024. The courts’ findings bolstered the case for that listing.
The Advantages of Civil Litigation in
Terrorism Sponsorship Cases
Holding Wrongdoers Accountable
Civil litigation operates under a lower burden of proof than criminal litigation, increasing the chances of a successful outcome.
The legal discovery process in civil suits allows plaintiffs to access critical financial and organizational records of terror sponsors. Courts can also compel plaintiffs (individuals and entities) to testify and disclose their assets, which they cannot do in the criminal system.
Impairing Terrorist Networks
Successful lawsuits can freeze terrorist assets, block access to financial systems, and expose those who provide material support to terrorist entities.
Since terror financiers often seek anonymity, the public scrutiny of civil litigation serves as a strong deterrent, helping disrupt the financial infrastructures that sustains terrorism.
Catalyzing New Investigations
Civil lawsuits can bring to light new evidence, prompting government agencies to launch further investigations and expand its list of terrorist entities.
In past cases, legal actions against terror financiers have led to regulatory scrutiny and even criminal charges. Victims and legal experts play a crucial role in providing intelligence that governments may not otherwise access.
Cutting Through Propaganda
Civil suits establish a permanent and detailed record of the financial and ideological networks that sustain and promote terrorism.
Courts provide an important counterweight to misinformation and political propagandizing used by terrorist organizations, helping neutralize extremist influence on the media and public discourse.
Beyond Compensation: Giving Victims Agency
Unlike criminal prosecutions, which are controlled by the state, civil suits empower victims to take direct legal action against those responsible.
These cases ensure that the suffering of victims is publicly acknowledged and that the true nature of terrorist crimes is documented. For state sponsors of terrorism, which are often beyond the reach of criminal law, civil litigation may be the only viable means of achieving accountability.
Endorsement
Civil suits allow "private citizens to enter the battle on civil grounds through lawsuits aimed at crippling terrorist organizations at their foundation – their assets, funding, and financial backing. The national approach that has been used to dismantle the infrastructure of hate groups can be extended to the international realm and used against terrorist groups. The foundation of this approach is a private right to a cause of action rather than, or in addition to, relying upon military or diplomatic efforts by the government. … When other countries then enforce these foreign civil judgments, the problem of terrorism is removed from a political forum to the world of private international law where reciprocity and consistency are in those nations’ best interests."
-Fairfield University Law Professor Debra M. Strauss