On July 28, 2025, a judge sentenced a Black man to 24 months in jail in a case involving cannabis and hashish trafficking. One of the reasons given for the sentence was an Impact of Race and Culture Assessment, which examines how the accused’s ethnic and cultural backgrounds have shaped his life experiences.
This is the first time in Quebec that a court has considered an Impact of Race and Culture Assessment (IRCA) when deciding a sentence. These assessments provide an analysis of the lived reality of ethnocultural minorities and, in particular, the discrimination they face and its long-term effects. But taking such an assessment into account doesn’t automatically lead to a reduced sentence.
A similar type of assessment has existed since 2001 for Indigenous persons accused of crimes: the Gladue report, named after a 1999 Supreme Court decision. The Criminal Code of Canada states that courts have to pay close attention to the historical factors that could explain why an Indigenous person ends up in court. Based on this assessment, the court can choose an alternative to prison if it’s more appropriate in the circumstances.
For example, an Indigenous person may serve their sentence in an Indigenous healing lodge instead of a traditional prison. These lodges provide a reintegration process that is more culturally appropriate and grounded in the traditional values and beliefs of Indigenous communities.
A Gladue report always aims to make sure a sentence stays fair and appropriate in the circumstances. The harm caused to victims or to society is always taken into account.
A tool among many
While Gladue reports are now rather common all over Canada, IRCAs are mostly used in Ontario and Nova Scotia. Some judges consider that these assessments are important for determining a sentence that is fair and appropriate for an accused person from a specific community.
Defence lawyers can already point to many mitigating factors, which are facts that might justify a lighter sentence, depending on the case. For example, a person’s family situation, a difficult childhood, or limited access to education can all be raised as mitigating factors. These can be considered whether or not the person is part of an ethnocultural minority. Gladue reports and IRCAs build on these individual factors by adding a historical perspective, especially the intergenerational impacts of racism and discrimination.
Judges are free to follow the recommendations in these assessments, but there’s no obligation to do so. These assessments are simply additional tools that can assist them in deciding what sentence is appropriate.
Different initiatives, same goal
Gladue reports and IRCAs share a common objective: to address the disproportionately high number of Indigenous and Black people that are sent to jail by promoting sentences that reflect their specific realities. These assessments are not the first measures taken to work toward this goal.
In 2022, the Canadian government removed certain minimum sentences for drug- and firearm-related crimes. Before this change, regardless of the circumstances, judges had to impose a minimum prison sentence, which was different depending on whether it was a person’s first, second, third, or subsequent charge for the same crime.
This change was part of a larger effort to tackle racism and systemic discrimination in the justice system. For example, between 2010–2011 and 2019–2020, minimum sentences for firearm-related crimes were given to 2,110 people. Of these, 30% were Indigenous people and 18% were Black people.