Tougher Bail Rules for Gun Offences

Summary#

This bill changes Canada’s bail rules for a narrow set of gun‑related cases. It raises the burden on the accused to prove that detention is not needed, and it suspends the usual “release first” rule in these cases. It also updates related bail review and paperwork sections to use the new test.

• Applies only when a person is charged with listed firearm offences or robbery with a firearm and was already under a firearms prohibition order (s.515(10.2)).
• In those cases, detention is presumed justified unless the accused proves three things to the judge (s.515(10.1)).
• The usual principle to release at the earliest chance on the least strict conditions does not apply in these cases (s.493.1(2)).
• Judges must use the new test when cancelling releases and in detention reviews (ss.524(4), 525(5)).
• Court forms are updated to reference the new subsection (Form 8 references).

What it means for you#

• Households

  • If a family member is charged with one of the listed offences while under a firearms ban, they are more likely to be held in jail before trial unless they can meet the higher burden for release (s.515(10.1)-(10.2)). Timing: upon the bill coming into force; no delayed start date is stated.
  • Expect stricter bail conditions if released, because the “least onerous conditions” rule does not apply in these cases (s.493.1(2)).

• Accused persons

  • Who is affected: People charged with offences in ss.85, 87, 95–103, 108, 244, 244.1, 244.2, or robbery with a firearm under paragraph 344(1)(a), and who allegedly offended while under a firearms prohibition order under s.109 or s.110 (s.515(10.2)).
  • What changes: Detention is justified unless you satisfy the judge that all three are true: your detention is not needed for court attendance; there is minimal likelihood detention is needed for public safety; and there is minimal likelihood detention is needed to maintain confidence in justice (s.515(10.1)).
  • Practical effect: You and your lawyer will likely need more evidence at the bail hearing to meet this burden. Hearings may be longer. Data unavailable on average added time.
  • If your previous release is cancelled, you must show why detention is not justified under the same new test to avoid being held (s.524(4)). At detention reviews, the judge applies the same standard (s.525(5)).

• Victims and witnesses

  • In these cases, there may be a higher chance the accused is detained before trial, which can reduce contact risks before trial (s.515(10.1)(b)).
  • Judges must consider safety of the public, victims, and witnesses in deciding if detention is needed (s.515(10.1)(b)).

• Police and prosecutors

  • The usual “primary consideration” for release on least onerous conditions does not apply in these cases (s.493.1(2)), which may support seeking detention.
  • You will still need to present information on risks and circumstances. The accused bears the burden to displace detention (s.515(10.1)).

• Courts and legal aid

  • Bail hearings in affected cases may take longer due to the accused’s burden to prove “minimal likelihood” on public safety and confidence grounds (s.515(10.1)). Data unavailable on workload impact.
  • Court forms must cite the new subsection in orders and records (Form 8 updates).

• Provincial and territorial jails

  • Remand populations could increase if more accused are detained pretrial in the affected category. The bill does not include capacity or funding measures. Magnitude unknown. Data unavailable.

Expenses#

Estimated net cost: Data unavailable.

• Fiscal note: No publicly available fiscal note identified for this bill. Data unavailable.
• Explicit appropriations in the bill text: None; the bill changes legal standards and forms only (bill text).
• Potential downstream impacts (not costed in the bill):
  • Possible increase in pretrial detention days for affected cases, with costs borne mainly by provinces/territories. Data unavailable.
  • Possible increase in court time for bail hearings and reviews. Data unavailable.
  • Possible offsetting public safety benefits are not monetized. Data unavailable.

Proponents' View#

• Targets a narrow, high‑risk group: people accused of serious firearm offences who allegedly offended while already under a court‑ordered firearms ban (s.515(10.2)). Proponents say this focuses on repeat or defiant behaviour.
• Improves public safety by making pretrial detention the default unless the accused shows there is only a minimal chance detention is needed for safety (s.515(10.1)(b)). They argue this reduces risk of reoffending while on release. Quantitative impact: Data unavailable.
• Supports confidence in the justice system by requiring the accused to also show a minimal likelihood that detention is needed to maintain confidence, considering offence seriousness and circumstances (s.515(10.1)(c), referencing s.515(10)(c)(i)-(iv)).
• Clarifies that the “release at earliest opportunity on least onerous conditions” rule does not apply in these exceptional cases (s.493.1(2)), which proponents say removes mixed signals to judges in high‑risk situations.
• Aligns related procedures (cancellation of release and detention reviews) with the same standard, promoting consistency across decisions (ss.524(4), 525(5)).

Opponents' View#

• Increases pretrial detention and jail crowding by making detention the default in the listed cases, shifting the burden to the accused to overcome it (s.515(10.1)). Scale and costs: Data unavailable.
• Risks longer and more complex bail hearings because the accused must prove three separate points, including “minimal likelihood” on safety and confidence grounds (s.515(10.1)(a)-(c)). This may add court delays. Data unavailable.
• Erodes the principle of restraint by carving out an exception where judges need not prioritize the least onerous conditions (s.493.1(2)). Opponents warn this could lead to stricter conditions or detention even when tailored release might manage risk.
• Legal risk: The heightened burden on the accused in these cases may face Charter challenges related to the right to reasonable bail. The bill does not include safeguards or review clauses. Outcome of any challenge: Data unavailable.
• Disparate impact concerns: Because pretrial detention rates already vary across groups, opponents caution the change could widen disparities in remand populations. The bill does not include monitoring or reporting requirements. Evidence within the bill: None.