Bill C-225, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, would amend Canada’s existing Criminal Code. Its stated goal is to change how the law treats some killings and violence involving an intimate partner; these are proposed changes, not provisions in force. If enacted, most provisions would start 30 days after royal assent (formal approval).
A murder would be first-degree murder, whether or not planned and deliberate, if the victim was the accused’s intimate partner and the accused caused the death while engaging in, or after engaging in, a pattern of coercive or controlling conduct intended to make the victim believe their physical or psychological safety was threatened.
A court sentencing someone for manslaughter in those circumstances would have to consider a life sentence. If it imposed one, the parole-ineligibility period would be at least 10 years and could be raised to 25 years for an adult.
The bill would create an offence involving violence used, threatened or attempted against an intimate partner while committing another offence. The maximum prison term for an indictable conviction would depend on the maximum penalty for that other offence.
It would extend the usual detention period for seized things under section 490 of the Code from three months to 180 days, with existing wording allowing a longer period tied to a detention application.
It would change a bail-related provision concerning alleged violence against an intimate partner, adding specified past convictions or discharges and certain recognizances as criteria.
The bill includes coordination rules for Bill C-16. Which changes apply could depend on whether and when that bill receives royal assent and comes into force.
People charged with offences involving an intimate partner: If the new violence offence applied, an indictable conviction could carry a maximum of five years, 10 years, 14 years or life, depending on the maximum penalty for the other offence. These are maximums, not automatic sentences. The bill also allows a person to be convicted of the other offence if the evidence proves it but not the new offence.
People convicted of manslaughter in the specified circumstances: A judge must consider a life sentence, but the bill does not require the judge to impose one. For an adult given a life sentence, the judge could set parole ineligibility at 10 to 25 years. The bill also sets different parole-ineligibility rules for some people under 18.
People accused of violence against an intimate partner: The bill adds prior convictions or discharges involving violence against any intimate partner, and certain recognizances, to the criteria in a bail provision.
Courts and people whose property is seized: Courts would apply the new sentencing and offence rules. Things seized under section 490 could generally be detained for 180 days instead of three months.
General public: The bill does not create a new support service or a process for applications by victims or families.
The bill does not define “pattern of coercive or controlling conduct” in the text supplied. It is also unclear whether the Criminal Code defines “intimate partner” elsewhere; the parent Act was not supplied to check.
The bill does not set out how the new violence offence would work in practice alongside the other offence, or specify a summary-conviction penalty in the new provision.
The supplied text does not show the current wording of the bail provision, so the full change to existing bail rules cannot be verified.
The bill’s coordination rules make some amendments depend on Bill C-16. The supplied material does not say whether Bill C-16 will become law or when its relevant provisions would start.
The bill does not provide an implementation date beyond the 30-day rule, funding, or a cost estimate.
The bill appears intended to recognize that a murder may follow a pattern of coercive or controlling conduct, even if it was not planned and deliberate.
Requiring judges to consider a life sentence for manslaughter in the specified circumstances could allow a more severe sentence where the conduct and circumstances warrant it.
A separate offence tied to violence against an intimate partner could make that circumstance explicit in the law.
Extending the detention period for seized things could give more time before the usual period ends.
The bill does not define the key phrase “pattern of coercive or controlling conduct.” That could leave important questions about what conduct qualifies to be resolved in court.
The new offence may overlap with the offence committed at the same time. The bill’s rules for charges and penalties could add complexity, and the supplied text does not explain how that overlap would be handled.
A judge must consider a life sentence for the specified manslaughter cases, but the bill gives no guidance on what should lead to imposing one. The parole period can also vary substantially.
The bill does not explain the practical effects of the bail-related change or how it fits with existing rules.
The new court and criminal-law duties may have costs, but the bill provides no estimate.