Bill C-45 · 37th Parliament · Jean Chrétien
An Act to amend the Criminal Code (criminal liability of organizations)
Government bill. Became law.
- IntroducedJune 12, 2003
- Debated in principleSept. 19, 2003
- Studied by a committeeDone
- Passed its first chamberOct. 27, 2003
- Passed the second chamberOct. 29, 2003
- Became lawNov. 7, 2003
Leading supporters
Ranked by the part each played: who is responsible for the bill, who carried it, and who spoke for it most.
- Jean ChrétienPrime Minister
Who carries this bill
Arrows run from the person responsible to those who answer to them on this bill. The critic leads the Senate’s scrutiny and answers to no one on it.
Where members stand
Votes and debate for this bill have not been read yet.
How it changed on the way
73% of the text as introduced was changed or removed by the time it became law (4,798 words introduced, 3,201 passed). A committee amended it.
substantial changeintent mostly kept
The core rules attributing criminal liability to organizations for negligence and other offences stayed in place with only minor wording tweaks. Parliament added a new section on offences by representatives, updated service rules, inserted sentencing factors, and made several technical adjustments during passage.
- Changed wording for who may receive service of process on an organization.
Before: “to the manager, secretary or other executive officer of the organization or one of its branches.”
After: “to the manager, secretary or other senior officer of the organization or one of its branches.”
- Added a new subsection creating liability for representatives who commit fraud on behalf of an organization.
After: “6.1 The portion of subsection 418(2) of the Act before paragraph (a) is replaced by the following: Offences by representatives (2) Every one who, being a representative of an organization that commits, by fraud, an offence under subsection (1),”
How precisely it is written
mixedChallenging the law: ModerateDisputing a charge: Moderate
The bill supplies structured definitions and tiered rules that tie liability to specific roles and conduct, yet repeatedly inserts subjective standards such as 'important role' and 'reasonably be expected'. This produces a hybrid text that is neither fully mechanical nor wholly open-ended.
Clear-cut
“one of its representatives is a party to the offence, or (ii) two or more of its representatives engage in conduct, whether by act or omission, such that, if it had been the conduct of only one representative, that representative would have been a party to the offence”
Sets out an explicit aggregation rule that converts multiple acts into a single hypothetical representative.“Every one who undertakes, or has the authority, to direct how another person does work or performs a task is under a legal duty to take reasonable steps to prevent bodily harm”
Creates a clear duty tied to the factual trigger of undertaking or having authority to direct work.
Discretion. No regulation-making power is granted; discretion rests with prosecutors and courts to apply the listed factors and 'reasonable' standards.
Challenging the law itself. Sections 22.1 and 22.2 could be attacked under Charter s. 7 for vagueness or overbreadth because key liability triggers rely on subjective assessments of importance and reasonableness.
Disputing a charge under it. An accused organization can readily dispute whether a senior officer's conduct met the 'markedly' or 'all reasonable measures' thresholds, though the aggregation rule in 22.1(a) is harder to contest once facts are found.
Read by a language model from the royal assent text; every quoted phrase appears in the bill. A reading of the drafting, not legal advice.
Did it work?
no evaluation found
No official statutory reviews, parliamentary reports, Auditor General audits, PBO reports, or departmental evaluations assess whether Bill C-45 achieved its objectives of modernizing organizational criminal liability. Academic studies and court applications indicate limited enforcement and impact, but these fall outside preferred official sources.
- Taking Organizations Seriously: Responsible Agency, Organizations and the Criminal Law (Queen's University thesis)studyTwelve years after enactment, the promise of Bill C-45 is largely unfulfilled due to individualist bias in responsibility ascription.
- Cracking down on corporate crime? The disappearance of corporate criminal liability legislation in Canada (Policy and Practice in Health and Safety)studyDespite expectations, Bill C-45 has fallen into virtual disuse with few prosecutions, influenced by anti-regulatory forces.
Who lobbied on it
No lobbying registration naming this bill is loaded.
Stages and dates from LEGISinfo.