An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Judges Act (violence against an intimate partner)

How it changed on the way

77% of the text as introduced was changed or removed by the time it became law (389 words introduced, 420 passed). A committee amended it.

substantial changeintent broadened

The bill kept the core goals of electronic monitoring conditions for intimate-partner cases and judicial education on intimate-partner violence, but Parliament broadened the bail rule to cover any violent offence and expanded the education topics. It also added a coming-into-force clause and updated wording on family relationships and the monarch.

• The Criminal Code change shifted from adding a new paragraph limited to intimate-partner offences to replacing an existing paragraph that covers violent offences including intimate partners.

  Before: “(c.1) an offence against the accused's intimate partner;”

  After: “(c) an offence in the commission of which violence against a person was used, threatened or attempted, including against the accused's intimate partner;”

• The Judges Act education description was expanded to include coercive control in intimate partner and family relationships.

  Before: “on matters related to intimate partner violence and coercive control”

  After: “intimate partner violence, coercive control in intimate partner and family relationships”

• The annual report requirement was updated to match the broadened seminar topics.

  Before: “on matters related to intimate partner violence and coercive control that were offered”

  After: “intimate partner violence, coercive control in intimate partner and family relationships and social context, which includes systemic racism and systemic discrimination, that were offered”

• A coming-into-force clause was added that was absent from the introduced bill.

  After: “This Act comes into force on the 30th day after the day on which it receives royal assent.”

How precisely it is written

mixedChallenging the law: ModerateDisputing a charge: Hard

The bill mixes exact numerical timelines and specific statutory cross-references with subjective phrases such as 'desirable, in the interests of the safety and security' that leave the core decision open to interpretation. Broad undefined phrases like 'matters related to' and the non-mandatory 'should submit' further reduce precision.

Open to argument

• “consider whether it is desirable, in the interests of the safety and security of any person”

  Subjective standard that invites prolonged argument over what safety interests justify the condition.

• “the Council should submit to the Minister a report”

  Uses 'should' rather than 'shall', leaving compliance discretionary and undefined.

• “seminars on matters related to sexual assault law, intimate partner violence, coercive control in intimate partner and family relationships and social context, which includes systemic racism and systemic discrimination”

  Undefined scope of 'matters related to' and expansive list of topics without objective boundaries.

Clear-cut

• “on the 30th day after the day on which it receives royal assent”

  Provides a fixed, objective commencement date.

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

  Uses a clear numerical deadline tied to a calendar event.

• “if the Attorney General makes the request”

  Creates an objective factual trigger for the monitoring condition.

Discretion. The justice retains wide discretion to decide whether monitoring is 'desirable' and the Attorney General controls whether to request it, with no further statutory criteria or regulations specified.

Challenging the law itself. The subjective 'desirable' test and broad seminar topics could be challenged under Charter sections 7 and 11(e) on grounds of vagueness or overbreadth in bail conditions and judicial education mandates.

Disputing a charge under it. Once a court order imposes the monitoring condition, any breach is a straightforward violation of the order itself, making factual disputes over the original subjective decision difficult to raise in enforcement proceedings.

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.