An Act to amend the Criminal Code in order to implement the United Nations Convention against Corruption

How it changed on the way

86% of the text as introduced was changed or removed by the time it became law (3,992 words introduced, 2,200 passed).

substantial changeintent mostly kept

The bill kept its core purpose of making technical Criminal Code amendments to implement the UN Convention against Corruption. During passage, large sections of the introduced text on definitions, bribery offences and forfeiture were removed or replaced, with new wording added to complete the forfeiture provision.

• Added explicit court-satisfaction test for forfeiture of offence-related property.

  Before: “if a person is convicted of an indictable offence under this Act or the Corruption of Foreign Public Officials Act and, on application of the Attorney General, the”

  After: “if a person is convicted of an indictable offence under this Act or the Corruption of Foreign Public Officials Act and, on application of the Attorney General, the court is satisfied, on a balance of probabilities, that any property Order of forfeiture of property on conviction is offence-related property and that the offence was committed in”

How precisely it is written

mostly preciseChallenging the law: HardDisputing a charge: Moderate

The bill uses defined terms such as offence-related property and official, lists specific intents and acts, and applies clear evidentiary standards like beyond a reasonable doubt or balance of probabilities. A few phrases remain open to argument over scope.

Open to argument

• “directly or indirectly, corruptly accepts, obtains, agrees to accept or attempts to obtain”

  The word corruptly introduces a subjective moral element that requires case-by-case interpretation.

• “a reward, advantage or benefit of any kind”

  The phrase any kind is open-ended and could cover a wide range of conduct without further limits.

Clear-cut

• “liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years”

  Fixed maximum sentence removes discretion over penalty length.

• “satisfied, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the property is offence-related property”

  Objective criminal standard of proof is stated explicitly.

• “notice in accordance with subsection (2) be given to, and may hear, any person who resides in the dwelling-house”

  Specific procedural safeguard for family members is spelled out.

Discretion. Courts apply the listed tests and evidentiary standards; no new powers are granted to ministers or officials to define offences by regulation.

Challenging the law itself. The provisions contain defined terms, enumerated acts, and standard criminal burdens, making a successful vagueness or overbreadth claim under Charter s. 7 unlikely.

Disputing a charge under it. An accused could argue whether conduct was corrupt or whether an item qualifies as an advantage of any kind, but the listed intents and property definitions limit the scope of such disputes.

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.