Tougher Sentences for Remote and Occupied Crimes

Summary#

This bill changes how courts sentence some crimes. It adds new aggravating factors (facts that can raise a sentence) and guides judges on how to count time spent in jail before sentencing. It does not create new crimes or change maximum penalties. It applies at the sentencing stage only.

• Makes it an aggravating factor if a crime targets people or property that are vulnerable because police or ambulance response is slow or the person/property is far from these services or from a community (s.718.2(a)(iii.11)).
• For listed offences, makes it an aggravating factor if the crime happened in an occupied “place” and the offender knew or was reckless about that and used violence/threats or carried/used/threatened a weapon or imitation weapon (s.348.1; offences under s.98, s.98.1, s.279(2), s.343, s.346, s.348).
• Requires judges to consider the recorded reason for pre‑sentence detention when deciding how much credit to give for time served before sentencing (s.719(3.01), referencing s.515(9.1)).
• Does not add funding or new enforcement powers (Bill text).

What it means for you#

• Households and property owners

  • If someone commits one of the listed offences in an occupied place and uses violence/threats or a weapon or imitation weapon, judges must treat that as aggravating. This can lead to a higher sentence than in similar cases without those facts (s.348.1).
  • If you live in an area with slow emergency response or far from services, crimes against you or your property may be treated as more serious at sentencing (s.718.2(a)(iii.11)).

• People in remote or rural communities

  • Crimes against you or your property may carry higher sentences because the law recognizes your higher vulnerability due to remoteness or slow response times (s.718.2(a)(iii.11)).
  • Courts will look at evidence about response times or remoteness when it is presented (s.718.2(a)(iii.11)).

• Accused persons and defendants

  • If you were in custody before sentencing, the judge must consider why you were detained, as recorded in the bail decision, when deciding credit for time served (s.719(3.01), s.515(9.1)).
  • In the listed offences, if the place was occupied and you knew or were reckless about that and used violence/threats or had a weapon or imitation weapon, that will count against you at sentencing (s.348.1).

• Businesses (including remote locations)

  • If located where emergency response is slow or far, crimes against your property may draw higher sentences under the new aggravating factor (s.718.2(a)(iii.11)).

• Police, prosecutors, and courts

  • Sentencing may require evidence about emergency response times or remoteness, and about whether a place was occupied and the offender’s knowledge or recklessness (s.718.2(a)(iii.11), s.348.1).
  • Judges must consult the recorded reason for pre‑sentence detention when setting credit for time served (s.719(3.01), s.515(9.1)).

• Effective date

  • The bill sets sentencing rules that would apply after it comes into force. Data unavailable on the coming-into-force date.

Expenses#

Estimated net cost: Data unavailable.

• No explicit appropriations or new revenues in the bill (Bill text).
• No official fiscal note identified. Data unavailable.
• The bill affects sentencing only. It may change sentence length in some cases, but there is no public estimate of the number of affected cases or the budget impact. Data unavailable.

Proponents' View#

• Improves protection for remote and hard-to-serve communities by recognizing their greater vulnerability at sentencing (s.718.2(a)(iii.11)).
• Addresses higher risk to people inside an occupied place during serious crimes by making violence/threats or weapon or imitation weapon use an aggravating factor for the listed offences (s.348.1; s.98, s.98.1, s.279(2), s.343, s.346, s.348).
• Treats imitation weapons that cause fear more seriously in these cases, not just real weapons, which can better reflect victim harm (s.348.1).
• Promotes fairer credit for time served by requiring judges to weigh the recorded reason for pre‑sentence detention, improving transparency and consistency (s.719(3.01), s.515(9.1)).
• Leaves judicial discretion intact; it does not impose mandatory minimums, but guides judges to consider these specific factors (s.348.1; s.718.2(a)(iii.11); s.719(3.01)).

Opponents' View#

• Could lengthen sentences and increase incarceration costs in aggravated cases; no cost analysis is provided to assess scale (s.348.1; s.718.2(a)(iii.11)). Data unavailable.
• The new “vulnerability due to long response times or remoteness” factor may be hard to measure, creating disputes over what counts as “long” or “remote” and adding complexity to sentencing (s.718.2(a)(iii.11)).
• May create unequal outcomes by geography, since the same offence could draw a higher sentence in rural areas than in urban areas with faster response times (s.718.2(a)(iii.11)).
• Adds “imitation weapon” as aggravating for listed offences even when no separate weapon offence is proven, which some may see as double counting or overbreadth (s.348.1).
• Requiring courts to consider the reason for pre‑sentence detention could reduce credit for time served in some cases, but there is no guidance on how much weight to give this factor, which may reduce consistency (s.719(3.01), s.515(9.1)).