An Act to amend the Criminal Code (exploitation and trafficking in persons)

How it changed on the way

The texts have not been compared yet.

How precisely it is written

mixedChallenging the law: ModerateDisputing a charge: Moderate

The bill sets clear mandatory consecutive sentences tied to specific Criminal Code sections and adds trafficking offences to an existing forfeiture list. It also introduces a rebuttable presumption and a contextual reasonableness test for exploitation that depend on evidence and interpretation.

Open to argument

• “evidence that a person who is not exploited lives with or is habitually in the company of a person who is exploited is, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, proof that the person exercises control, direction or influence over the movements of that person for the purpose of exploiting them or facilitating their exploitation.”

  The phrase 'in the absence of evidence to the contrary' creates an open-ended standard that invites prolonged disputes over what suffices to rebut the presumption.

Clear-cut

• “an offence under any of sections 279.01 to 279.03.”

  The cross-reference to specific sections is narrow and leaves no room for expansion by officials.

Discretion. The Act comes into force only on a day fixed by order of the Governor in Council, leaving the timing and any related implementation details entirely to executive discretion.

Challenging the law itself. The rebuttable presumption and contextual reasonableness test could be challenged for vagueness or overbreadth under section 7 of the Charter because they rely on subjective standards rather than fixed criteria.

Disputing a charge under it. An accused could readily dispute the presumption by introducing evidence to the contrary or by arguing that the contextual test for exploitation was not met on the facts.

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.