An Act to amend the Judges Act and the Criminal Code

How it changed on the way

44% of the text as introduced was changed or removed by the time it became law (1,137 words introduced, 1,011 passed). A committee amended it.

moderate changeintent mostly kept

The bill kept its main goal of tying judicial appointments and education to sexual assault law but softened mandatory duties to recommendations and added references to systemic racism, discrimination and Indigenous consultation. Language shifted from 'shall' and 'must' to 'should', the scope of seminars and reports was broadened, and the Criminal Code requirement for reasons in decisions is absent from the passed version.

• Changed mandatory reporting and seminar duties to advisory ones.

  Before: “The Council shall ensure that seminars”

  After: “The Council should ensure that seminars”

• Expanded the topics of education and reports to include systemic issues.

  Before: “on matters related to sexual assault law and social context.”

  After: “on matters related to sexual assault law and social context, which includes systemic racism and systemic discrimination,”

• Broadened required consultation for seminar development.

  Before: “such as sexual assault survivors and groups and organizations that support them;”

  After: “such as sexual assault survivors and persons, groups and organizations that support them, including Indigenous leaders and representatives of Indigenous communities;”

• Made inclusion of specific instruction topics conditional rather than required.

  Before: “include instruction in evidentiary prohibitions, principles of consent”

  After: “include, where the Council finds appropriate, instruction in evidentiary prohibitions, principles of consent”

How precisely it is written

mixedChallenging the law: ModerateDisputing a charge: Hard

The bill mixes exact lists of offences, fixed time limits and mandatory reasons with repeated subjective phrases that let the Council decide what counts as appropriate. This leaves room for argument over scope while creating clear obligations on timing and record-keeping.

Open to argument

• “persons, groups or organizations the Council considers appropriate”

  Uses subjective judgment by the Council rather than an objective list or test.

• “where the Council finds appropriate”

  Condition depends on the Council's own finding, creating broad discretion.

• “The Council should ensure”

  Uses 'should' instead of 'shall', softening the obligation into a recommendation.

Clear-cut

• “Within 60 days after the end of each calendar year”

  Sets a fixed, objective deadline with no discretion.

• “offence under section 151, 152, 153, 153.1 or 155, subsection 160(2) or (3) or section 170, 171, 172, 173, 271, 272 or 273”

  Enumerates exact Criminal Code provisions, leaving no ambiguity about coverage.

• “at least 10 years’ standing at the bar”

  Uses a clear numerical threshold for eligibility.

Discretion. The Canadian Judicial Council decides which organizations to consult, which topics to include in seminars, and whether instruction on consent or myths is appropriate, with only a reporting duty to the Minister.

Challenging the law itself. A challenge could argue vagueness or overbreadth under s. 7 of the Charter because phrases like 'considers appropriate' and 'social context' give wide latitude that may not give fair notice of required conduct.

Disputing a charge under it. A judge facing removal or discipline for non-compliance would have difficulty disputing the facts once the Council determines that a seminar was appropriate and offered, given the objective attendance and reporting rules.

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.