Summary#

This bill changes the Criminal Code to address neglect of adults in long‑term care. It creates a clear legal duty for long‑term care facility owners and officers to ensure residents get the “necessaries of life” (basic needs such as food, shelter, and care). It lets courts ban convicted owners or officers from working or volunteering with vulnerable adults, and it adds a sentencing factor for organizations that fail a legal duty owed to vulnerable adults. The law takes effect 30 days after it receives royal assent (Coming into Force).

• Creates a new criminal duty for owners and officers of long‑term care facilities to ensure residents receive necessaries of life (amending Criminal Code s.215(1)(b.1)).
• Sets the offence threshold: the failure must endanger life or cause, or be likely to cause, permanent injury to health (amending s.215(2)(b)).
• Allows courts to order bans on working or volunteering with vulnerable adults; breach of the order is a new offence with up to 4 years in prison (Prohibition order, subsections (1)–(4)).
• Requires courts to consider any provincial penalties already imposed when deciding a ban (Prohibition order, subsection (1.1)).
• Adds a sentencing factor for organizations that failed a legal duty owed to vulnerable adults (adding s.718.21(a.1)).
• Defines “long‑term care facility” and “officer” for clarity (definitions added to s.214).

What it means for you#

• Households and residents

  • Owners and officers of long‑term care homes now have a specific criminal duty to ensure residents receive basic needs. Police and prosecutors can use this duty in neglect cases that meet the harm threshold (s.215(1)(b.1), s.215(2)(b)).
  • If an owner or officer is convicted or conditionally discharged for such neglect, a court may ban them from jobs or volunteer roles involving trust or authority over vulnerable adults, for any period the court finds appropriate (Prohibition order, subsections (1)–(2)).
  • The law takes effect 30 days after royal assent (Coming into Force).

• Workers in long‑term care

  • Front‑line staff are not named by the new “officer” definition unless they hold officer roles. “Officer” includes roles like board chair, president, vice‑president, secretary, treasurer, comptroller, general counsel, general manager, managing director, or similar functions, or anyone designated as an officer (definition of “officer,” s.214).
  • Workplace policies may change as facilities work to ensure compliance. Data unavailable.

• Owners, boards, and senior leaders of long‑term care facilities

  • You face criminal exposure if you fail to ensure residents receive necessaries of life and that failure endangers life or is likely to cause permanent injury (s.215(1)(b.1), s.215(2)(b)).
  • On conviction or discharge, you may be prohibited from working or volunteering with vulnerable adults; violating that order is a separate offence punishable by up to 4 years’ imprisonment on indictment, or by summary conviction (Prohibition order, subsections (1)–(4)).
  • Courts will also consider, for organizational sentencing, whether your organization failed a legal duty owed to vulnerable adults (s.718.21(a.1)).

• Provincial regulators and local governments

  • When deciding any prohibition order, courts must consider penalties or measures already imposed under provincial laws or policies meant to protect vulnerable adults (Prohibition order, subsection (1.1)).

Expenses#

Estimated net cost: Data unavailable.

• No fiscal note or federal cost estimate identified. Data unavailable.
• The bill makes criminal law changes and creates no direct appropriations or fees (Bill text).
• Possible impacts on enforcement, courts, and corrections are not quantified. Data unavailable.

Proponents' View#

• Clarifies accountability at the top: Adds an explicit duty for owners and officers of long‑term care facilities to ensure residents get basic needs (s.215(1)(b.1)), addressing institutional neglect at the leadership level (Bill: s.215(1)(b.1)).
• Targets serious harm: Ties criminal liability to cases where failure endangers life or is likely to cause permanent injury, focusing on the most severe neglect (s.215(2)(b)).
• Prevents repeat harm: Allows courts to ban convicted owners or officers from jobs or volunteer roles with vulnerable adults, with flexible duration (Prohibition order, subsections (1)–(2)).
• Respects provincial action: Requires courts to take into account penalties or measures already imposed under provincial regimes when deciding a prohibition order, reducing duplication (Prohibition order, subsection (1.1)).
• Strengthens sentencing for organizations: Makes failure of a legal duty to vulnerable adults an aggravating factor, which can lead to tougher sentences for organizations (s.718.21(a.1)).

Opponents' View#

• High harm threshold: The offence applies only if the failure endangers life or is likely to cause permanent injury (s.215(2)(b)); critics say many cases of neglect may not meet this bar and thus see no change.
• Overlap and complexity: Courts must weigh provincial penalties (subsection (1.1)), which could create uneven outcomes across provinces and add procedural complexity.
• Enforcement challenges: Proving that owners or officers “failed to ensure” necessaries of life and that this failure caused the specified harm may be difficult in large institutions with many actors (s.215(1)(b.1), s.215(2)(b)).
• Limited scope of who is covered: The new duty targets owners and “officers” as defined; front‑line staff are not directly included, which some argue leaves gaps in accountability (definition of “officer,” s.214).
• Risk of unintended staffing effects: Greater criminal exposure for officers may deter qualified leaders from serving in long‑term care. Data unavailable.