Summary#

Bill C-233 changes bail and judicial education rules to address violence against an intimate partner. It lets prosecutors ask courts to require electronic monitoring as a bail condition and requires judges to consider safety when deciding on release in these cases. It also expands judges’ continuing education to cover intimate partner violence, coercive control, and social context, and asks for yearly reporting on these seminars.

• Courts may add electronic monitoring (an ankle or similar device that tracks location) as a bail condition when requested by the Attorney General (government prosecutor) (Criminal Code s.515(4.2)(a.2)).
• In cases involving violence, including against an intimate partner, judges must consider safety conditions before release (Criminal Code s.515(4.3)(c)).
• The Canadian Judicial Council must provide seminars for judges on intimate partner violence, coercive control, and social context (Judges Act s.60(2)(b)).
• The Council is asked to submit an annual report to the Minister of Justice on these seminars; the Act uses “should submit,” not “must” (Judges Act s.62.1(1)).
• The Act takes effect 30 days after Royal Assent (Coming into Force).

What it means for you#

• Households

  • If an accused is charged with an offence against an intimate partner, the court must consider whether to add safety-related conditions before release. This can include electronic monitoring if the prosecutor asks for it (Criminal Code s.515(4.2)(a.2), s.515(4.3)(c)). Effective 30 days after Royal Assent.
  • Victims may see more tailored release conditions aimed at safety, such as monitoring or other limits. The judge decides case by case (Criminal Code s.515(4.2)).

• Accused persons in intimate partner violence cases

  • Prosecutors can request electronic monitoring as a condition of bail. The judge must consider whether it is desirable for safety but is not required to order it (Criminal Code s.515(4.2)(a.2)).
  • If monitoring or other conditions are imposed, any breach can lead to arrest and possible revocation of bail under existing Criminal Code rules.

• Judges and courts

  • Judges will have access to new seminars on intimate partner violence, coercive control, and social context, including systemic racism and discrimination (Judges Act s.60(2)(b)).
  • The Canadian Judicial Council is asked to report each year to the Minister on these seminars (Judges Act s.62.1(1)).

• Provincial/territorial justice systems

  • If courts order electronic monitoring, provincial/territorial programs and police will need to administer and enforce those orders. The bill does not set standards for devices or operations; those remain with existing programs.

Expenses#

Estimated net cost: Data unavailable.

• No explicit federal appropriation or new fees are included in the bill text. Data unavailable (Bill text).
• Judicial education: The Canadian Judicial Council must establish seminars and is asked to produce an annual report. Any costs would come from existing budgets or future appropriations not specified here. Data unavailable (Judges Act s.60(2)(b), s.62.1(1)).
• Electronic monitoring: If ordered by a court, equipment, monitoring, and enforcement are typically handled by provincial/territorial authorities. The bill creates authority to order monitoring but does not fund it. Data unavailable (Criminal Code s.515(4.2)(a.2)).

Proponents' View#

• Improves victim safety at the bail stage by requiring judges to consider whether electronic monitoring is desirable when the prosecutor requests it in intimate partner cases (Criminal Code s.515(4.2)(a.2); s.515(4.3)(c)).
• Gives courts another tool short of detention by allowing monitoring as a condition of release, which can manage risk while preserving pretrial liberty when appropriate (Criminal Code s.515(4.2)(a.2)). Assumes monitoring can substitute for detention in some cases; the bill provides no effectiveness data.
• Strengthens judicial understanding of intimate partner violence and coercive control through mandated continuing education (Judges Act s.60(2)(b)). Assumes training improves decision quality; outcomes not measured in the bill.
• Increases transparency by asking the Canadian Judicial Council to report yearly on seminars (Judges Act s.62.1(1)). Note: the section uses “should,” which is advisory.

Opponents' View#

• Creates an unfunded mandate risk: electronic monitoring orders may increase costs for provinces and police without new federal funding (Criminal Code s.515(4.2)(a.2)). Actual cost impact is not provided.
• May expand surveillance and conditions on accused persons before trial, raising concerns about proportionality and presumption of innocence. Effect depends on how often prosecutors request monitoring and how judges apply it (Criminal Code s.515(4.2)).
• Technical and operational risks: device availability, network coverage, and false alerts could lead to unintended breaches and added court workload. The bill sets no technical standards; programs vary by jurisdiction. Data unavailable.
• Reporting on judicial seminars is advisory (“should submit”), which may limit accountability if reports are delayed or incomplete (Judges Act s.62.1(1)).