Bill S-206 · 44th Parliament · Justin Trudeau
An Act to amend the Criminal Code (disclosure of information by jurors)
Senate bill. Became law.
- IntroducedNov. 23, 2021
- Debated in principleDec. 8, 2021
- Studied by a committeeDone
- Passed its first chamberDec. 8, 2021
- Passed the second chamberSept. 28, 2022
- Became lawOct. 18, 2022
Where members stand
Votes and debate for this bill have not been read yet.
How it changed on the way
55% of the text as introduced was changed or removed by the time it became law (453 words introduced, 353 passed).
substantial changeintent kept
The bill's purpose to allow jurors to disclose information to health care professionals remained unchanged from introduction to passage. Over half the text was revised, chiefly to update the year, monarch's name, and assent date while retaining the listed exceptions.
- Monarch and regnal year updated in header to reflect passage after accession of Charles III.
Before: “S-206 1 44 70 Elizabeth II 2021”
After: “S-206 1 44 70-71 Elizabeth II – 1 Charles III 2021-2022”
How precisely it is written
mixedChallenging the law: ModerateDisputing a charge: Moderate
The text uses fixed timelines and a provincial-law test to limit the new exception, but relies on open-ended phrases about purpose and connection to juror service. This leaves room for argument over what counts as permitted disclosure.
Open to argument
“health issues arising out of or related to the person’s service at the trial”
The phrase 'arising out of or related to' sets a broad, fact-specific standard that invites disagreement over causation and scope.
Clear-cut
“Ninetieth day after royal assent”
A fixed calendar rule removes discretion over when the amendment takes effect.“entitled to do so under the laws of a province”
The qualification test points to an external, verifiable legal standard rather than an official's opinion.
Discretion. No power is delegated to ministers, officials or regulations; the amendment and its start date are set directly in the statute.
Challenging the law itself. The breadth of 'related to' could support a vagueness or overbreadth claim under section 7 of the Charter by making the boundary of lawful disclosure uncertain.
Disputing a charge under it. An accused could argue that the disclosed information did not concern health issues sufficiently connected to jury service or was not disclosed strictly for treatment purposes.
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?
The evidence has not been searched yet.
Who lobbied on it
No lobbying registration naming this bill is loaded.
Stages and dates from LEGISinfo.