An Act to amend the Criminal Code

How it changed on the way

97% of the text as introduced was changed or removed by the time it became law (1,482 words introduced, 3,172 passed). A committee amended it.

transformative changeintent changed direction

The bill shifted from creating multiple new standalone offences for intimate-partner violence with fixed maximum sentences to a single overarching offence for included violent acts plus a coercive-control element that upgrades murder to first degree. Detention periods were shortened and new bail and sentencing rules were added that were absent from the introduced version.

• Murder provision gained a coercive-control requirement.

  Before: “Murder of intimate partner (3.1) Irrespective of whether a murder is planned and deliberate on the part of any person, murder is first degree murder when the victim is that person's intimate partner.”

  After: “Murder of intimate partner (3.1) Irrespective of whether a murder is planned and deliberate on the part of any person, murder is first degree murder when the victim is that person's intimate partner and the death is caused by that person while engaging in, or after having engaged in, a pattern of coercive or controlling conduct with intent to cause the victim to believe that the victim's physical or psychological safety is threatened.”

• Multiple specific new offences were replaced by one included-offence framework.

  Before: “Criminal harassment of intimate partner 264.01 (1) No person shall, without lawful authority and knowing that their intimate partner is harassed or being reckless as to whether their intimate partner is harassed, engage in any of the following conduct that causes their intimate partner reasonably, in all the circumstances, to fear for their safety or the safety of anyone known to their intimate partner:”

  After: “Violence against intimate partner 263.1 (1) Everyone who commits an offence — referred to in this section as the "included offence" — in which violence is used, threatened or attempted against their intimate partner is (a) guilty of an indictable offence and liable to the punishment provided for in subsection (3);”

• Maximum detention of seized things was reduced from one year to 180 days.

  Before: “Further detention (2) Nothing shall be detained under the authority of paragraph (1)(b) for a period of more than one year after the day of the seizure, or any longer period that ends when an application made under paragraph (a) is decided, unless”

  After: “Further detention (2) Nothing shall be detained under the authority of paragraph (1)(b) for a period of more than 180 days after the day of the seizure, or any longer period that ends when an application made under paragraph (a) is decided, unless”

• New reverse-onus bail rule for intimate-partner violence was inserted.

  After: “(b.1) with an offence in the commission of which violence was allegedly used, threatened or attempted against their intimate partner, and the accused (i) has been previously convicted or discharged under section 730 of an offence in the commission of which violence was used, threatened or attempted against any intimate partner of the accused, or (ii) was, at the time the offence is alleged to have been committed, subject to a recognizance entered into under section 810, 810.02, 810.03, 810.1 or 810.2, in the case where the information for the recognizance was laid on behalf of any intimate partner of the accused;”

How precisely it is written

mixedChallenging the law: EasyDisputing a charge: Moderate

The bill uses exact numbers and cross-references for sentences and procedures but relies on undefined phrases like 'pattern of coercive or controlling conduct' and subjective intent tests. This mix creates clear rules for penalties once the conduct is established yet leaves the core offence elements open to argument.

Open to argument

• “a pattern of coercive or controlling conduct”

  The phrase is undefined and uses subjective descriptors without objective criteria or examples.

• “with intent to cause their intimate partner to believe that their physical or psychological safety is threatened”

  The test turns on the victim's internal belief rather than observable facts or an objective standard.

• “intimate partner”

  The term appears repeatedly without a definition in the supplied text.

Clear-cut

• “liable to a term of imprisonment of not more than (a) five years, if the maximum term of imprisonment for the included offence is two years or more but less than five years;”

  The punishment tiers are fixed by reference to exact maximum terms already in the Code.

• “Nothing shall be detained under the authority of paragraph (1)(b) for a period of more than 180 days after the day of the seizure”

  The detention limit is stated as a precise number of days with a clear starting point.

Discretion. Judges retain discretion to set parole ineligibility between 10 and 25 years or between 5 and 7 years for offenders under 18, guided only by the character of the offender and circumstances of the offence.

Challenging the law itself. Section 7 Charter challenges for vagueness and overbreadth are readily available because the undefined 'pattern of coercive or controlling conduct' fails to give fair notice of prohibited behaviour.

Disputing a charge under it. An accused can dispute whether the conduct formed a qualifying 'pattern' or met the intent-to-cause-belief test, requiring the Crown to prove subjective elements beyond reasonable doubt.

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.