An Act to amend the Criminal Code (assaults against public transit operators)

How it changed on the way

91% of the text as introduced was changed or removed by the time it became law (298 words introduced, 282 passed).

minor changeintent kept

The bill passed with no changes to its substantive provisions on sentencing for assaults against public transit operators. Only formal elements such as the parliamentary session references and assent date were updated for the final statute.

• Updated the parliamentary session years in the header to include the year of assent.

  Before: “Second Session, Forty-first Parliament, 62-63 Elizabeth II, 2013-2014”

  After: “Second Session, Forty-first Parliament, 62-63-64 Elizabeth II, 2013-2014-2015”

• Added chapter number and assent date to the final statute.

  After: “CHAPTER 1 An Act to amend the Criminal Code (assaults against public transit operators) [Assented to 25th February, 2015]”

How precisely it is written

mostly preciseChallenging the law: ModerateDisputing a charge: Moderate

The bill supplies explicit definitions for public transit operator and vehicle, plus a mandatory sentencing direction, allowing quick identification of covered cases in most instances. Some breadth remains from the word includes and the duty-performance test.

Open to argument

• “engaged in the performance of his or her duty”

  This phrase requires factual judgment about timing and scope of work, opening room for argument.

Clear-cut

• “"public transit operator" means an individual who operates a vehicle used in the provision of passenger transportation services to the public, and includes an individual who operates a school bus.”

  Supplies a core definition plus an explicit inclusion that removes doubt for school-bus cases.

• “"vehicle" includes a bus, paratransit vehicle, licensed taxi cab, train, subway, tram and ferry.”

  Lists concrete examples that fix the term's outer reach without further discretion.

Discretion. No power is delegated to ministers, officials or regulations; the court must apply the listed aggravating factor directly.

Challenging the law itself. The breadth of the operator definition could be attacked for vagueness or overbreadth under section 7 of the Charter.

Disputing a charge under it. An accused could readily dispute whether the victim satisfied the defined role or was on duty at the exact moment.

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.