Bill C-28 · 44th Parliament · Justin Trudeau
An Act to amend the Criminal Code (self-induced extreme intoxication)
Government bill. Became law.
- IntroducedJune 17, 2022
- Debated in principleJune 22, 2022
- Studied by a committeeDone
- Passed its first chamberJune 22, 2022
- Passed the second chamberJune 23, 2022
- Became lawJune 23, 2022
Leading supporters
Ranked by the part each played: who is responsible for the bill, who carried it, and who spoke for it most.
- Justin TrudeauPrime Minister
Who carries this bill
Arrows run from the person responsible to those who answer to them on this bill. The critic leads the Senate’s scrutiny and answers to no one on it.
What it set out to do
On 17 June 2022, the Minister of Justice introduced Bill C-28, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (self-induced extreme intoxication), and it was given first reading. Bill C-28 amends the Criminal Code to provide for criminal liability for violent crimes of general intent committed by a person while in a state of negligent self-induced extreme intoxication.
Summary by the Library of Parliament.
Where members stand
Votes and debate for this bill have not been read yet.
How it changed on the way
58% of the text as introduced was changed or removed by the time it became law (531 words introduced, 353 passed).
substantial changeintent kept
The bill replaced the prior self-induced intoxication defence rule with a new extreme intoxication negligence provision. Minor date and punctuation edits occurred between introduction and royal assent, but the core liability rule stayed unchanged.
How precisely it is written
mixedChallenging the law: ModerateDisputing a charge: Moderate
The text supplies an explicit definition of extreme intoxication and directs courts to apply an objective reasonable-person test for foreseeability of risk. At the same time it leaves open-ended what counts as a marked departure once all relevant circumstances are considered.
Open to argument
“departed markedly from the standard of care expected of a reasonable person in the circumstances”
The adverb markedly and the phrase in the circumstances are open to differing judicial assessments.“also consider all relevant circumstances, including anything that the person did to avoid the risk”
The phrase all relevant circumstances supplies no closed list and invites argument over what facts matter.
Clear-cut
“extreme intoxication means intoxication that renders a person unaware of, or incapable of consciously controlling, their behaviour”
A functional definition is supplied that turns on observable incapacity rather than degree of intoxication alone.“the court must consider the objective foreseeability of the risk”
The word objective anchors the test in an external standard rather than the accused's personal beliefs.
Discretion. No power is delegated to ministers, officials or regulations; application rests entirely with the courts.
Challenging the law itself. The combination of an objective test with an open-ended circumstances clause could support a vagueness or overbreadth argument under section 7 of the Charter.
Disputing a charge under it. An accused can dispute whether the consumption created an objectively foreseeable risk of extreme intoxication and violence, but the reasonable-person standard narrows the range of plausible disputes.
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.
Did it work?
too early to tell
Bill C-28 amended the Criminal Code in June 2022 to impose liability for violent general intent offences committed in a state of negligent self-induced extreme intoxication, addressing the gap left by R. v. Brown. No comprehensive statutory reviews, audits, departmental evaluations, or court applications of the new section 33.1 have been identified, with official sources noting zero reported cases requiring its use and committees calling for a parliamentary review three years post-enactment.
- House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights Report (December 2022)reviewThe committee studied the bill's subject matter post-passage and recommended a formal parliamentary review three years after it came into force to assess application, interpretation, and impact on victims.
- Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs Report (April 2023)reviewThe committee recommended a parliamentary review of section 33.1 three years after Bill C-28 came into force to assess effectiveness in meeting Parliament’s objectives and impact on victims of crime.
- Journal of Forensic Sciences article (2024)studyProvides an overview of the legal changes from R. v. Brown and Bill C-28 but does not evaluate the new provision's practical effectiveness or case outcomes.
Who lobbied on it
No lobbying registration naming this bill is loaded.
Stages and dates from LEGISinfo.