An Act to amend the Criminal Code (mental disorder) and to make consequential amendments to other Acts

How it changed on the way

81% of the text as introduced was changed or removed by the time it became law (18,980 words introduced, 10,648 passed). A committee amended it.

substantial changeintent mostly kept

The bill kept its core purpose of updating Criminal Code rules on assessments and dispositions for accused found unfit or not criminally responsible. Passage added new victim notice and participation rights while replacing or expanding many procedural sections.

• Definition of assessment was broadened beyond medical practitioners.

  Before: “"assessment" means an assessment by a medical practitioner of the mental condition of the accused under an assessment order made under section 672.11 or 672.121, and any incidental observation or examination of the accused;”

  After: “"assessment" means an assessment by a medical practitioner or any other person who has been designated by the Attorney General as being qualified to conduct an assessment of the mental condition of the accused under an assessment order made under section 672.11 or 672.121, and any incidental observation or examination of the accused;”

• New requirement added for victim notice of hearings.

  After: “(5.1) At the victim's request, notice of the hearing and of the relevant provisions of the Act shall be given to the victim within the time and in the manner fixed by the rules of the court or Review Board.”

• New duty for court or Review Board to check for changes in mental condition that could support discharge.

  After: “(13.2) On receiving an assessment report, the court or Review Board shall determine whether, since the last time the disposition in respect of the accused was made or reviewed there has been any change in the mental condition of the accused that may provide grounds for the discharge of the accused under paragraph 672.54(a) or (b) and, if there has been such a change, the court or Review Board shall notify every victim of the offence that they are entitled to file a statement in accordance with subsection (14).”

How precisely it is written

mixedChallenging the law: ModerateDisputing a charge: Moderate

The bill mixes narrow rules such as fixed time limits and listed offences with repeated subjective tests that turn on opinions about risk, necessity and the administration of justice. This leaves many outcomes dependent on discretionary judgments rather than clear, objective criteria.

Open to argument

• “if the accused is not likely to ever be fit to stand trial and does not pose a significant risk to the safety of the public and a stay is in the interests of the proper administration of justice”

  Uses three open-ended standards that invite argument over likelihood, significance and justice interests.

• “the Review Board is satisfied on the evidence that custody is necessary to assess the accused, or that on the evidence of a medical practitioner custody is desirable”

  Turns on the Board's satisfaction and a vague desirability test rather than fixed criteria.

• “unless the court or Review Board is of the opinion that the reading or presentation of the statement would interfere with the proper administration of justice”

  Leaves publication decisions to an undefined opinion about justice administration.

Clear-cut

• “The Review Board may adjourn the hearing for a period not exceeding thirty days”

  Sets a hard numerical cap on adjournments.

• “extend the time for holding a subsequent hearing under this section to a maximum of twenty-four months”

  Provides a clear maximum extension period.

• “an indictable offence referred to in section 151, 152, 153, 153.1, 155, 160, 170, 171, 172, 271, 272 or 273”

  Uses an exhaustive statutory list rather than a general description.

Discretion. Review Boards and courts receive wide latitude to order assessments, extend hearings, weigh victim statements and decide stays on the basis of their own opinions and assessments of risk or justice interests, with only limited consent requirements for Attorneys General on transfers.

Challenging the law itself. Vague phrases such as 'proper administration of justice' and 'significant threat' could support a section 7 Charter vagueness or overbreadth challenge, though the presence of some defined terms and procedural safeguards may narrow the argument.

Disputing a charge under it. An accused could readily dispute whether a Review Board had 'reasonable grounds to believe' or was 'satisfied' on subjective risk or necessity tests, but the many opinion-based standards make outcomes fact-specific and harder to predict.

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.