Tougher Penalties for Assaults on Transit Staff

Summary#

This bill changes the Criminal Code to increase penalties for assaults against public transit workers. It requires judges to treat an assault on a public transit worker, while they are doing their job, as an “aggravating circumstance” (a factor that can increase the sentence) when setting a sentence (Bill, replacing Criminal Code s.269.01(1)). It also defines “public transit” to include paratransit, school buses, and licensed taxi cabs (s.269.01(2)).

• Expands protection from only “public transit operators” to “all public transit workers” (s.269.01(1)).
• Applies to threats and assault offences in Criminal Code ss. 264.1(1)(a), 266–269 (s.269.01(1)).
• Covers services using buses, trains, subways, trams, ferries, and licensed taxi cabs, including paratransit and school buses (s.269.01(2)).
• Does not create a new crime; it changes sentencing rules only (s.269.01(1)).
• “Public transit worker” is not defined in the bill; “public transit” is defined (s.269.01(2)).

What it means for you#

• Households and passengers

  • If enacted, people who assault or threaten a public transit worker doing their job would face tougher sentencing because courts must treat it as an aggravating factor (s.269.01(1)).
  • Services included range from city transit to school buses, paratransit, ferries, and licensed taxis (s.269.01(2)).

• Public transit workers

  • Sentencing in assault and threat cases against you must consider the job-related victim status as aggravating, which can lead to longer or stricter sentences for offenders (s.269.01(1)).
  • Applies only when you are performing your duties at the time of the offence (s.269.01(1)).

• Taxi drivers (licensed) and school bus workers

  • You are covered because the bill’s definition of “public transit” includes licensed taxi cabs and school bus services (s.269.01(2)).

• Defendants and accused persons

  • If convicted of threats or assault against a public transit worker on duty, you face higher sentencing exposure because of the mandatory consideration of the aggravating factor (ss.264.1(1)(a), 266–269; s.269.01(1)).
  • The underlying offences and their elements do not change; only sentencing does (s.269.01(1)).

• Transit agencies, school boards, and taxi operators

  • No new compliance program is required by the bill. Prosecutors may request court recognition of the worker’s status; agencies may need to provide documentation that the victim was on duty (s.269.01(1)).

• Courts and prosecutors

  • Prosecutors would present evidence that the victim was a “public transit worker” performing duties; judges must treat that as aggravating when sentencing (s.269.01(1)).
  • “Public transit worker” is undefined; courts will need to interpret the scope case by case, using the provided definition of “public transit” (s.269.01(2)).

Expenses#

Estimated net cost: Data unavailable.

• No direct appropriations or fees in the bill text (Bill, replacing Criminal Code s.269.01).
• The bill does not create new offences, only a sentencing factor (s.269.01(1)).
• Possible cost drivers, if sentences lengthen: correctional and court time. Magnitude: Data unavailable.

Proponents' View#

• Broadens protection to all workers who keep transit running, not only operators, closing a gap in current law (s.269.01(1)).
• Applies across many modes, including paratransit, school buses, ferries, and licensed taxis, ensuring consistent treatment across services the public uses (s.269.01(2)).
• Keeps the focus on serious conduct already criminalized (threats and assaults), avoiding creation of new crimes (ss.264.1(1)(a), 266–269; s.269.01(1)).
• Makes the aggravating factor mandatory for judges to consider, which can strengthen deterrence and accountability in sentencing (s.269.01(1)).
• Targets on-duty incidents only, which limits the scope to job-related victimization and avoids overreach into private settings (s.269.01(1)).

Opponents' View#

• “Public transit worker” is not defined, which could create uncertainty about who is covered and lead to uneven application or litigation (s.269.01(1)-(2)).
• Including licensed taxi cabs may sweep in a wide range of private-sector situations, raising line-drawing issues for courts and police (s.269.01(2)).
• Harsher sentences may increase incarceration time and costs without clear evidence of deterrence; the bill provides no cost estimate. Magnitude: Data unavailable.
• Requires proof the victim was on duty, adding steps in prosecution and potential disputes at sentencing, which can increase court time (s.269.01(1)).
• Creates differential sentencing based on the victim’s occupation, which some may view as inconsistent with proportionality if injury and intent are otherwise the same (ss.266–269; s.269.01(1)).