An Act to amend the Criminal Code (mischief)

How it changed on the way

81% of the text as introduced was changed or removed by the time it became law (398 words introduced, 563 passed). A committee amended it.

substantial changeintent mostly kept

The core purpose of expanding mischief offences to additional properties remained, but the grounds for bias were revised and properties were limited to those used by identifiable groups. A coordinating amendment was added to align with Bill C-16 on gender identity.

• Motivation list was expanded and reordered.

  Before: “religion, race, colour, national or ethnic origin , gender identity or sexual orientation”

  After: “religion, race, colour, national or ethnic origin, age, sex, sexual orientation or mental or physical disability”

• Properties were restricted to use by identifiable groups.

  Before: “primarily used as an educational institution”

  After: “primarily used by an identifiable group as defined in subsection 318(4) as an educational institution”

• Coordinating amendment with Bill C-16 was inserted.

  After: “The portion of subsection 430(4.1) of the Criminal Code before paragraph (a) is replaced by the following:”

How precisely it is written

mixedChallenging the law: ModerateDisputing a charge: Moderate

The bill uses specific lists of building types and a cross-reference to the existing definition of identifiable group, which narrows the property covered. However, the core offence turns on proving the mischief was motivated by bias, prejudice or hate, a subjective test that invites factual disputes.

Open to argument

• “if the commission of the mischief is motivated by bias, prejudice or hate based on religion, race, colour, national or ethnic origin, age, sex, sexual orientation or mental or physical disability”

  Requires courts to determine the accused's internal motive, an inherently subjective inquiry without objective markers.

• “primarily used”

  Leaves room for argument over the main purpose of a building or part of a building in borderline cases.

Clear-cut

• “a building or structure, or part of a building or structure, that is primarily used by an identifiable group as defined in subsection 318(4) as an educational institution”

  Ties the category to a statutory definition and gives concrete examples such as school or university.

• “property described in any of paragraphs (4.101)(a) to (d)”

  Creates an exhaustive, closed list of four property categories rather than an open-ended standard.

Discretion. No power is delegated to ministers, officials or regulations; the offence elements are set entirely in the Criminal Code text.

Challenging the law itself. A vagueness or overbreadth claim under section 7 of the Charter could be advanced against the motive element, though the property definitions are concrete enough to survive a facial challenge.

Disputing a charge under it. An accused can readily dispute whether the act was in fact motivated by one of the listed grounds, turning the case into a factual contest over evidence of bias or hate.

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.