COVID-19 Response Measures Act

How it changed on the way

6% of the text as introduced was changed or removed by the time it became law (12,763 words introduced, 12,750 passed).

minor changeintent mostly kept

The bill passed with only minor textual corrections such as added commas and a completed statutory reference. No substantive changes were made to the new recovery benefits or the COVID-related leave rules.

• Added a missing comma after the self-employed phrase.

  Before: “they have, as a self-employed person reduced the time devoted to their work as a self-employed person by at least 50% of the time they would have otherwise worked in that week — because”

  After: “they have, as a self-employed person, reduced the time devoted to their work as a self-employed person by at least 50% of the time they would have otherwise worked in that week — because”

• Completed the cross-reference to the new Act in the repayment rule.

  Before: “or section 8 of the ) of any of the following amounts to the extent that the amount was included in computing the taxpayer's income”

  After: “or section 8 of the Canada Recovery Benefits Act ) of any of the following amounts to the extent that the amount was included in computing the taxpayer's income”

How precisely it is written

vagueChallenging the law: ModerateDisputing a charge: Easy

The bill relies heavily on subjective phrases such as 'in the opinion of' and broad undefined concepts like family-like relationships, leaving eligibility and penalties open to argument. It also grants wide regulation-making power and ministerial discretion rather than fixed objective rules.

Open to argument

• “in the opinion of a medical practitioner, nurse practitioner, person in authority, government or public health authority”

  This subjective standard makes it impossible to know in advance whether a person's situation meets the test without seeking an opinion.

• “anyone whom the person considers to be like a close relative or who considers the person to be like a close relative”

  The definition turns on personal feelings rather than any objective relationship test.

• “if the Minister is of the opinion that the person has committed a violation”

  Penalty imposition rests on the Minister's subjective view rather than an objective finding of fact.

• “The Governor in Council may, by regulation, fix a lower percentage”

  Core eligibility thresholds can be changed at any time by regulation without further legislative approval.

Clear-cut

• “week means the period of seven consecutive days beginning on and including Sunday”

  This supplies a clear, objective time unit that removes ambiguity.

• “a fine of not more than the sum of $5,000 plus an amount of not more than double the amount of the benefit”

  Maximum financial consequences are stated in exact dollar terms.

• “within, but not later than, five years after the day on which the Minister became aware”

  The limitation period is fixed by a precise, verifiable starting point.

Discretion. Extensive power is left to the Governor in Council to alter percentages, numbers of weeks and other conditions by regulation, and to the Minister to decide eligibility, penalties and reconsiderations on the basis of opinion.

Challenging the law itself. The repeated use of 'in the opinion of' and open-ended family definitions could support a vagueness or overbreadth challenge under s. 7 of the Charter, though emergency context may narrow success.

Disputing a charge under it. A person facing a penalty or denial can readily dispute whether the subjective medical or ministerial opinion was formed correctly or whether the 50 % reduction test was 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.