An Act to amend the Criminal Code (conversion therapy)

How it changed on the way

59% of the text as introduced was changed or removed by the time it became law (2,286 words introduced, 1,522 passed).

moderate changeintent mostly kept

The bill's core provisions adding conversion therapy to Criminal Code seizure and forfeiture rules stayed the same. Only the bill date and one cross-reference were updated between introduction and royal assent.

• Added cross-reference to the new conversion therapy offence.

  After: “(liii.1) section 320.102 (conversion therapy), 2019, c.”

How precisely it is written

mixedChallenging the law: EasyDisputing a charge: Moderate

The bill uses a detailed enumerated definition and clear 'knowingly' offences with fixed penalties, making core prohibitions fairly objective. However, the exclusion clause and 'designed to' language introduce interpretive room that could lead to disputes over coverage.

Open to argument

• “a practice, treatment or service designed to”

  The word 'designed' requires inference about purpose, which is not purely objective.

• “relates to the exploration or development of an integrated personal identity — such as a practice, treatment or service that relates to a person’s gender transition — and that is not based on an assumption”

  Phrases like 'relates to' and 'not based on an assumption' rely on subjective judgment about intent and content.

Clear-cut

• “change a person’s sexual orientation to heterosexual;”

  Specific, closed list of six prohibited aims leaves little ambiguity about what acts are targeted.

• “Everyone who knowingly causes another person to undergo conversion therapy”

  Mens rea element of 'knowingly' and direct prohibition create a clear conduct rule.

• “liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than five years”

  Numeric maximum sentence removes discretion over penalty range.

Discretion. No power is delegated to ministers, officials or regulations; all operative rules are fixed in the Criminal Code itself.

Challenging the law itself. The definition's breadth and potential impact on expression or liberty could readily support a Charter challenge under sections 2(b) or 7 for vagueness or overbreadth.

Disputing a charge under it. An accused could argue the excluded 'exploration' clause or lack of prohibited design applies to their conduct, requiring factual findings about purpose.

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.