Bill C-293 · 41th Parliament · Stephen Harper
An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act (vexatious complainants)
Private member’s bill. Became law.
- IntroducedSept. 28, 2011
- Debated in principleMarch 7, 2012
- Studied by a committeeDone
- Passed its first chamberSept. 26, 2012
- Passed the second chamberMarch 5, 2013
- Became lawMarch 26, 2013
Leading supporters
Ranked by the part each played: who is responsible for the bill, who carried it, and who spoke for it most.
- Pierre-Hugues BoisvenuSenate · Sponsor in the Senate
- Roxanne James11 interventions in debateShe introduced and moved the bill multiple times while praising it as important legislation.
- Kevin Sorenson2 interventions in debateHe endorses the bill by comparing vexatious complainants to the boy who cried wolf and stressing resource strain.
- Paul CalandraHe praises the bill as a spectacular crime bill introduced by the member for Scarborough Centre.
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
That the Bill be now read a second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security. · 2012-03-07 · Passed
How it changed on the way
96% of the text as introduced was changed or removed by the time it became law (760 words introduced, 296 passed). A committee amended it.
transformative changeintent changed direction
The bill shifted from designating offenders as vexatious complainants with notice, rebuttal rights, assistance plans and semi-annual reviews to a direct prohibition power exercisable by the Commissioner. Most procedural protections and the judicial-review clause were dropped and replaced by an annual review requirement plus regulation-making authority.
- Review frequency and content altered.
Before: “The Commissioner shall assess, every six months, the status of an offender who has been designated as a vexatious complainant and advise the offender in writing of this assessment and its outcome.”
After: “The Commissioner shall review each prohibition under subsection (1) annually and shall give the offender written reasons for his or her decision to maintain or lift it.”
How precisely it is written
vagueChallenging the law: EasyDisputing a charge: Hard
The bill relies on the Commissioner's subjective satisfaction and undefined terms like frivolous or vexatious to trigger a broad prohibition power. It leaves procedures and the ongoing regime to regulations rather than fixing clear rules in the statute itself.
Open to argument
“prohibit an offender from submitting any further complaint or grievance except by leave of the Commissioner”
Grants open-ended discretion without statutory limits on duration or scope.“in accordance with the prescribed procedures”
Defers core limits to future regulations instead of stating them directly.
Clear-cut
“The Commissioner shall review each prohibition under subsection (1) annually and shall give the offender written reasons for his or her decision to maintain or lift it”
Creates a fixed annual timeline and mandatory written reasons.
Discretion. The Commissioner decides when the threshold is met, whether to impose or lift the ban, and what leave to grant, while the Governor in Council controls the entire procedures and regime through regulations.
Challenging the law itself. Vague and subjective language plus broad discretion readily support a vagueness or overbreadth challenge under section 7 of the Charter.
Disputing a charge under it. Once a prohibition is issued, any dispute turns on the Commissioner's discretionary satisfaction rather than objective statutory criteria.
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?
The evidence has not been searched yet.
Who lobbied on it
No lobbying registration naming this bill is loaded.
Stages and dates from LEGISinfo.