Miscarriage of Justice Review Commission Act (David and Joyce Milgaard's Law)

How it changed on the way

23% of the text as introduced was changed or removed by the time it became law (5,103 words introduced, 4,422 passed). A committee amended it.

moderate changeintent broadened

The Commission’s mandate was expanded to include systemic recommendations and notifications on program access. Admissibility rules for unappealed cases were broadened from Supreme Court only to include court of appeal.

• Mandate section 696.72 was expanded with new duties on systemic issues.

  Before: “Mandate 696.72 The Commission's mandate is to review applications made under Part XXI.1 on the grounds of miscarriage of justice after section 3 of the Miscarriage of Justice Review Commission Act (David and Joyce Milgaard's Law) comes into force.”

  After: “Mandate 696.72 The Commission's mandate is to (a) review applications made under Part XXI.1 on the grounds of miscarriage of justice after section 3 of the Miscarriage of Justice Review Commission Act (David and Joyce Milgaard's Law) comes into force; (b) make recommendations to address systemic issues that may lead to miscarriages of justice to relevant public authorities and bodies, including the Law Commission of Canada, federal-provincial-territorial committees and working groups, federal departments and agencies and parliamentary committees.”

• New clause added on notifying correctional bodies about barriers for applicants.

  After: “(a.1) direct employees to notify the Correctional Service of Canada and the Parole Board of Canada of the importance of ensuring that applicants and potential applicants do not experience barriers to or exclusion from programs, services or conditional release processes as a result of making an application for a review on the grounds of a miscarriage of justice;”

• Exception (4) on admissibility was broadened to cover appeals to court of appeal as well.

  Before: “Exception (4) Despite paragraph (3)(b), the Commission may decide that the application is admissible even if the finding or verdict was not appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada.”

  After: “Exception (4) Despite subsection (3), the Commission may decide that the application is admissible even if the finding or verdict was not appealed to the court of appeal or the Supreme Court of Canada.”

How precisely it is written

vagueChallenging the law: EasyDisputing a charge: Hard

The bill relies heavily on subjective phrases such as reasonable grounds, interests of justice, and factors the Commission considers relevant, leaving most key decisions open to argument. Defined terms exist but do not offset the broad discretion granted to the Commission.

Open to argument

• “if it has reasonable grounds to conclude that a miscarriage of justice may have occurred and considers that it is in the interests of justice to do so”

  Combines an objective-sounding threshold with a purely subjective interests-of-justice test that invites prolonged debate.

• “on the terms it considers appropriate”

  Grants the Commission unfettered discretion over investigation conditions without objective limits.

• “in the opinion of the Governor in Council, knowledge and experience that is related to the Commission’s mandate”

  Appointment standard rests entirely on the appointing body’s subjective view rather than measurable criteria.

• “any other factor that it considers relevant”

  Open-ended catch-all allows the Commission to weigh whatever it chooses in admissibility and remedy decisions.

Clear-cut

• “The employees necessary for the proper conduct of the work of the Commission are to be appointed in accordance with the Public Service Employment Act”

  Uses an existing statute to fix staffing rules without new discretion.

• “As soon as feasible after the fifth anniversary of the day on which this section comes into force and every ten years after that”

  Provides a clear numerical schedule for parliamentary review.

Discretion. The Commission decides admissibility, whether to investigate, what remedies to grant, and what factors to weigh, with only minimal statutory constraints and no regulations or ministerial directions specified.

Challenging the law itself. The repeated use of subjective standards such as interests of justice and factors the Commission considers relevant makes the provisions vulnerable to vagueness and overbreadth challenges under section 7 of the Charter.

Disputing a charge under it. The statute creates no offences; disputes would arise only in judicial review of Commission decisions rather than in proving breach of a prohibition.

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.