An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Identification of Criminals Act and to make related amendments to other Acts (COVID-19 response and other measures)

How it changed on the way

55% of the text as introduced was changed or removed by the time it became law (19,215 words introduced, 10,991 passed).

substantial changeintent mostly kept

The core COVID-19 remote-proceeding and jury measures were retained but the bill was expanded with mandatory independent and parliamentary reviews. Over half the text was altered through dozens of added or reworded procedural clauses on warrants, appearances and identification.

• Changed the peace-officer reporting requirement after warrant execution.

  Before: “shall forthwith make a return to the justice who issued the warrant or, if no warrant was issued, to a justice who might otherwise have issued a warrant, showing”

  After: “shall immediately make a report to a justice having jurisdiction in respect of the matter and, in the case of an execution of a warrant, jurisdiction in the province in which the warrant was issued, showing”

• Added independent and parliamentary reviews of remote proceedings.

  After: “The enactment also provides for one or more independent reviews on the use of remote proceedings in criminal justice matters.”

• Added a new blood-sample warrant provision.

  After: “Warrants to obtain blood samples 320.29 (1) A justice may issue a warrant authorizing a peace officer to require a qualified medical practitioner or a qualified technician to take the samples of a person's blood that, in the opinion of the practitioner or technician taking the samples, are necessary to enable a proper analysis to be made to determine the person's blood alcohol concentration or blood drug concentration, or both, if the justice is satisfied, on an information on oath in Form 1, that”

• Added rule that jurisdiction is not lost when an accused fails to appear in person.

  After: “When accused not appearing personally or in person (1.1) Jurisdiction over an accused is not lost by reason of the failure of the accused to appear personally or in person, so long as the provisions of this Act or a rule made under section 482 or 482.1 permitting the accused not to appear personally or in person apply.”

How precisely it is written

mixedChallenging the law: ModerateDisputing a charge: Moderate

The bill sets out clear procedural steps and defined terms for telecommunication applications and jury selection but repeatedly conditions their use on subjective judgments such as impracticability or appropriateness. This mix of mechanical rules and open-ended discretion produces a middle level of precision.

Open to argument

• “if it would be impracticable in the circumstances to submit the application by a means of telecommunication that produces a writing”

  The word 'impracticable' is a subjective standard that invites argument over what counts as too difficult.

• “in the opinion of the practitioner or technician taking the samples, are necessary”

  Reliance on the practitioner's opinion creates a discretionary medical judgment rather than an objective test.

• “if the justice considers it necessary in the circumstances”

  The phrase leaves the decision to the justice's personal view of necessity without further criteria.

• “the appearance by those means would be appropriate having regard to all the circumstances, including (a) the location and personal circumstances of the accused or offender”

  The open-ended 'appropriate' test and reference to unspecified circumstances introduce broad discretion.

Clear-cut

• “judicial officer means a judge or justice who is authorized, under the applicable provision of this Act, to issue a warrant, order, extension or authorization referred to in subsection (1)”

  The term is explicitly defined by reference to statutory authority.

• “Any electronic or other automated means may be used to select jurors so long as the jurors would be randomly selected as required by the jury selection process described in subsections 631(1) to (5)”

  The condition is tied to an existing, numbered statutory process rather than an open standard.

• “A judicial officer who receives an application submitted by a means of telecommunication that produces a writing shall certify the application as to time and date of receipt”

  The duty is stated as a mandatory, mechanical act with no evaluative language.

Discretion. Judges and justices retain wide latitude to decide when telecommunication is impracticable or appropriate and when to switch back to in-person proceedings.

Challenging the law itself. The repeated use of subjective phrases such as 'impracticable' and 'appropriate' could support a vagueness or overbreadth argument under section 7 or section 8 of the Charter.

Disputing a charge under it. An accused could readily dispute whether the circumstances truly made a writing-based application impracticable or whether the chosen means were appropriate, given the open-ended tests.

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.