Harsher penalties for assaulting health workers

Summary#

This bill changes the Criminal Code to make assaults or certain threats against on‑duty health care workers an aggravating factor at sentencing. It applies to uttering threats to cause death or bodily harm and to assault‑type offences. It does not create new crimes or mandatory minimums; it instructs judges to weigh this fact when choosing a sentence within current ranges (Bill Section 1(1)).

• Judges must treat the victim’s status as an on‑duty health care worker as an aggravating circumstance for uttering threats (s.264.1(1)(a)) and assaults (ss.266‑269) (Bill Section 1(1)).
• “Health care worker” includes anyone employed in a health care setting, such as a hospital, residential facility, clinic, pharmacy, or a home where a person receives home care (Bill Section 1(2)).
• The change may lead to higher sentences in eligible cases, but judicial discretion remains (Bill Section 1(1)).
• The bill does not add reporting, training, or security requirements for employers or workers. It addresses sentencing only (Bill text).
• No appropriations, taxes, or fees are included (Bill text).

What it means for you#

• Households and visitors

  • If you assault or threaten an on‑duty health care worker, courts must treat that fact as aggravating at sentencing. This can increase the sentence within the legal range (Bill Section 1(1), Criminal Code ss.264.1(1)(a), 266‑269).
  • The criminal charges do not change. The rule applies at sentencing after a finding of guilt (Bill Section 1(1)).
  • Effective upon Royal Assent; the bill sets no delayed implementation date (Bill text).

• Health care workers

  • When you are assaulted or threatened while doing your job, courts must consider that as an aggravating factor at sentencing (Bill Section 1(1)).
  • Coverage includes clinical and non‑clinical staff employed in hospitals, residential facilities, clinics, pharmacies, and home‑care settings (Bill Section 1(2)).
  • You may be asked to confirm you were “engaged in the performance of [your] duty” at the time, since the rule applies only then (Bill Section 1(1)).

• Prosecutors and defense

  • The Crown can seek a higher sentence by proving the victim was an on‑duty health care worker. The defence may contest whether the victim was “engaged in the performance of their duty” (Bill Section 1(1)–(2)).

• Health care employers

  • No new obligations are created. You may receive requests to verify employment or duty status to support sentencing submissions (Bill text).

• Provinces and territories (courts and corrections)

  • Sentencing in eligible cases may shift upward, which can affect custody and supervision workloads. Quantitative impact: Data unavailable (Bill Section 1(1)).

Expenses#

Estimated net cost: Data unavailable.

• No direct appropriations, taxes, or fees are in the bill (Bill text).
• Potential downstream costs if average sentences increase (custody, supervision, legal time). Data unavailable.
• Possible minor administrative workload to establish a victim’s employment and duty status at sentencing. Data unavailable.

Proponents' View#

• Enhances protection for health care workers by requiring courts to weigh assaults and serious threats against them more heavily at sentencing (Bill Section 1(1)).
• Brings parity with existing Criminal Code direction that treats assaults on certain service workers as aggravating, as reflected by placing this new clause after s.269.01 (Bill placement after s.269.01).
• Preserves proportionality and judicial discretion; it is not a mandatory minimum and does not create new offences (Bill Section 1(1)).
• Uses a broad, practical definition that covers hospitals, residential care, clinics, pharmacies, and home care, where incidents often occur (Bill Section 1(2)).
• May deter assaults and threats by signaling higher consequences; this assumes sentencing rules influence behavior. Evidence on deterrence effects: Data unavailable.

Opponents' View#

• Uncertain deterrence; sentence enhancements may not reduce assaults without complementary measures like staffing, de‑escalation training, or security upgrades. Evidence: Data unavailable.
• Could increase incarceration days and associated provincial/territorial costs, with no funding provided in the bill. Magnitude: Data unavailable (Bill text).
• Definition is broad; it covers non‑clinical staff in pharmacies and residential facilities, which could widen application beyond frontline clinical roles (Bill Section 1(2)).
• May create disputes about whether the victim was “engaged in the performance of their duty,” adding time and complexity to sentencing hearings (Bill Section 1(1)).
• Prioritizes protections by occupation; other public‑facing workers exposed to violence are not included, raising consistency concerns (Bill text).