An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Corrections and Conditional Release Act (restrictions on offenders)

How it changed on the way

86% of the text as introduced was changed or removed by the time it became law (1,142 words introduced, 1,046 passed). A committee amended it.

substantial changeintent broadened

The introduced bill required courts to consider fixed two-kilometre and vehicle bans plus made no-contact conditions compulsory for parole with narrow exceptions. The passed law replaced those with flexible distances or places chosen by the court and gave releasing authorities discretion to set any protective conditions after reviewing a victim's statement.

• Distance restriction changed from fixed two kilometres to two kilometres or any other distance the court specifies.

  Before: “being within two kilometres of a dwelling house where the offender knows or ought to know that the victim is present”

  After: “being within two kilometres, or any other distance specified in the order, of any dwelling-house where the victim identified in the order ordinarily resides or of any other place specified in the order”

• Vehicle prohibition for offenders with persons under 16 was removed entirely.

  Before: “being in a private vehicle with any person under the age of 16 years without the presence of the parent or guardian”

• Consent must now be given in writing or in the manner specified in the order, and reasons must be stated in the record rather than provided separately in writing.

  Before: “the victim, witness or other person gives their consent or, if the victim, witness or other person is a minor, the parent or guardian, or any other person who has the lawful care or charge of them, gives their consent”

  After: “For the purposes of subparagraph (2)(a.1)(i), the consent is valid only if it is given in writing or in the manner specified in the order.”

How precisely it is written

vagueChallenging the law: EasyDisputing a charge: Moderate

The bill repeatedly grants courts and releasing authorities power to impose conditions they 'consider reasonable and necessary' or 'necessary' and to waive them in 'exceptional circumstances' they deem 'not appropriate.' These subjective tests and undefined phrases leave the scope of restrictions open to case-by-case argument rather than fixed rules.

Open to argument

• “any conditions on the parole, statutory release or unescorted temporary absence of an offender that it considers reasonable and necessary in order to protect the victim or the person”

  The phrase turns on the releasing authority's subjective assessment rather than an objective standard.

• “tional circumstances, it is not appropriate to impose the condition”

  Both 'exceptional circumstances' and 'not appropriate' are undefined and invite prolonged disagreement over application.

• “any other distance specified in the order”

  The fixed two-kilometre rule is immediately undercut by unlimited discretion to choose any other distance.

• “the court considers necessary”

  Again delegates the content of the prohibition to the court's opinion without further statutory limits.

Clear-cut

• “being within two kilometres, or any other distance specified in the order”

  Supplies a concrete numerical starting point even though it is then qualified.

• “This Act comes into force three months after the day on which it receives royal assent”

  Uses a clear, calendar-based trigger with no discretion.

Discretion. Courts and releasing authorities retain wide latitude to choose conditions, distances, exceptions and whether reasons must be given, with almost no further limits set by regulation or statute.

Challenging the law itself. The pervasive subjective language ('considers reasonable and necessary', 'not appropriate') could readily be attacked under section 7 of the Charter as unconstitutionally vague or overbroad.

Disputing a charge under it. Once a condition is imposed, proving breach may be straightforward, but an accused can still litigate whether the condition itself was validly crafted or whether consent or exceptional-circumstances exceptions apply.

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.