Bill C-14 · 41th Parliament · Stephen Harper
Not Criminally Responsible Reform Act
An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the National Defence Act (mental disorder)
Government bill. Became law.
- IntroducedNov. 25, 2013
- Debated in principleNov. 25, 2013
- Studied by a committeeDone
- Passed its first chamberNov. 25, 2013
- Passed the second chamberApril 8, 2014
- Became lawApril 10, 2014
Leading supporters
Ranked by the part each played: who is responsible for the bill, who carried it, and who spoke for it most.
- Stephen HarperPrime 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.
What it set out to do
On 26 November 2013, the Minister of Justice introduced Bill C-14, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the National Defence Act (mental disorder) (Not Criminally Responsible Reform Act) in the House of Commons and it was given first reading. The Criminal Code mental disorder regime applies to a very small percentage of accused persons. A person found unfit to stand trial is referred to a provincial or territorial Review Board, which decides on a course of action. Under the current law, a Review Board can make one of three possible decisions: • If the person does not pose a significant threat to public safety, an absolute discharge (only available for a person found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder); • A conditional discharge; or, • Detention in custody in a hospital. Bill C-14 amends the mental disorder regime in the Criminal Code and the National Defence Act to specify that the paramount consideration in the decision-making process is the safety of the public and to create a scheme for finding that certain persons who have been found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder are high-risk accused. It also enhances the involvement of victims…
Summary by the Library of Parliament.
Where members stand
Votes and debate for this bill have not been read yet.
How it changed on the way
The texts have not been compared yet.
How precisely it is written
mixedChallenging the law: ModerateDisputing a charge: Hard
The bill mixes narrow numeric rules and defined terms with repeated subjective standards that require judgment calls by courts and officials. This creates room for argument over what qualifies as high-risk or appropriate in individual cases.
Open to argument
“necessary and appropriate in the circumstances”
Subjective standard that invites disagreement over what disposition meets both necessity and appropriateness.“the court is of the opinion that the acts that constitute the offence were of such a brutal nature”
Relies on judicial opinion about an undefined qualitative term rather than an objective test.“it is appropriate, in the opinion of the person in charge of the hospital”
Delegates key permission to absence from hospital to an official's personal view without further criteria.“as soon as practicable after a verdict”
Vague timing requirement that depends on contextual judgment rather than a fixed period.
Clear-cut
“the accused was 18 years of age or more at the time of the commission of the offence”
Uses a clear age threshold that can be verified without interpretation.“extend the time for holding a subsequent hearing under this section to a maximum of 36 months”
Sets an explicit numeric cap on extensions.
Discretion. Courts, Review Boards and hospital officials retain wide latitude to decide what is appropriate, necessary, desirable or in the interests of safety, with limited regulatory constraints shown in the text.
Challenging the law itself. Vague phrases such as brutal nature and appropriate in the opinion could support a section 7 Charter vagueness or overbreadth argument.
Disputing a charge under it. The provisions govern court and Review Board findings rather than imposing direct obligations on individuals that could be disputed as breaches.
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
Who lobbied on it
No lobbying registration naming this bill is loaded.
Stages and dates from LEGISinfo.