An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Sex Offender Information Registration Act and the International Transfer of Offenders Act

How it changed on the way

53% of the text as introduced was changed or removed by the time it became law (20,542 words introduced, 14,652 passed). A committee amended it.

substantial changeintent mostly kept

The core purpose of expanding Sex Offender Information Registration Act compliance stayed the same, but Parliament added extensive new duties for judges and prosecutors to consult victims and witnesses plus fresh limitations on when publication bans apply. Over half the introduced text was replaced or supplemented with these procedural safeguards during passage.

• Replaced simple inquiry duty with detailed consultation steps before making publication orders.

  Before: “Inquiry by court (3.1) If the prosecutor makes an application for an order under paragraph (2)(b) or (2.2)(b), the presiding judge or justice shall inquire of the prosecutor if reasonable steps were taken, before the application was made, to consult the victim with respect to the application.”

  After: “Inquiry by court (3.1) If the prosecutor makes an application for an order under paragraph (2)(b) or (2.2)(b), the presiding judge or justice shall (a) if the victim or witness is present, inquire of the victim or witness if they wish to be the subject of the order;”

• Added new limitations clarifying when publication orders do not restrict disclosure by victims or in justice administration.

  After: “Limitation (4) An order made under this section does not apply in either of the following circumstances: (a) the disclosure of information is made in the course of the administration of justice when the purpose of the disclosure is not one of making the information known in the community;”

• Inserted parallel duties and limitations for orders under section 486.5 covering victims, witnesses and justice system participants.

  After: “Limitation — victim, etc. (3.1) An order made under this section does not apply in respect of the disclosure of information by the victim, witness or justice system participant when it is not the purpose of the disclosure to make the information known to the public, including when the disclosure is made to a legal professional, a health care professional or a person in a relationship of trust with the victim, or witness or justice system participant.”

How precisely it is written

mixedChallenging the law: ModerateDisputing a charge: Moderate

The bill lists dozens of specific Criminal Code sections for automatic or presumptive registration and sets fixed durations of 10, 20 or life years. At the same time it repeatedly conditions obligations on open-ended judicial findings about connection, risk patterns and gross disproportionality.

Open to argument

• “unless the court is satisfied the person has established that (a) there would be no connection between making the order and the purpose of helping police services prevent or investigate crimes of a sexual nature”

  Uses a subjective, undefined 'no connection' test that invites argument over purpose and degree.

• “if a court is satisfied that the offences do not demonstrate a pattern of behaviour showing that the person presents an increased risk of reoffending”

  Relies on an impressionistic assessment of 'pattern' and 'increased risk' without objective criteria.

Clear-cut

• “A court shall make an order under any of subsections (1) to (3) in respect of a secondary offence only if the prosecutor applies for the order and establishes beyond a reasonable doubt that the person committed the secondary offence with the intent to commit a primary offence”

  States a clear beyond-reasonable-doubt standard and a specific intent requirement.

Discretion. Substantial discretion remains with sentencing courts to decide whether registration has 'no connection' to statutory purposes or would be 'grossly disproportionate', and with prosecutors to decide whether a warning is 'appropriate'.

Challenging the law itself. The repeated use of subjective phrases such as 'no connection', 'increased risk' and 'grossly disproportionate' could support a vagueness or overbreadth challenge under section 7 of the Charter.

Disputing a charge under it. An accused can readily dispute whether the Crown proved the required intent for secondary offences or whether a court properly applied the discretionary exceptions, but the fixed offence lists themselves are hard to contest.

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.