Tougher Penalties for Intimate Partner Violence

Summary#

This bill amends Canada’s Criminal Code to create specific offences for intimate partner violence, raise some penalties, and change procedures for arrest, bail, and seized property. It also classifies all murders of an intimate partner as first-degree murder.

• Creates intimate partner–specific offences for criminal harassment, uttering threats, assault, assault with a weapon/causing bodily harm (including choking), and aggravated assault, with higher maximum penalties than general offences (added after ss. 264, 264.1, 266, 267, 268).
• Makes murder of an intimate partner first-degree murder, regardless of planning or deliberation (s. 231(3.1)).
• Bars police from releasing a person arrested for an intimate partner offence if they have a prior intimate partner conviction within 5 years or are already on release for an intimate partner offence (added after s. 499).
• Lets courts order up to 7 days of custody for a risk-of-reoffending assessment at any stage of proceedings (added after s. 523).
• Extends default detention of seized property from 3 months to 1 year, allows extensions up to 2 years, requires notice of the right to challenge, and allows some hearings without notice and in private (s. 490(2)-(3.3)).

What it means for you#

• Households and intimate partners

  • More charges tailored to intimate partner violence, with higher maximum prison terms, including up to 10 years for criminal harassment and assault, 12 years for assault with a weapon/causing bodily harm, and 14 years for aggravated assault (added after ss. 264, 266, 267, 268).
  • All murders of an intimate partner treated as first-degree murder, which carries life imprisonment with 25 years before parole eligibility under existing law (s. 231(3.1)).
  • Judges may order a 7-day custody assessment to evaluate reoffending risk when deciding bail and conditions (added after s. 523).

• Accused persons in intimate partner cases

  • New intimate partner–specific charges with higher maximum penalties than general offences (added after ss. 264, 264.1, 266, 267, 268).
  • Police cannot release you after arrest if you had an intimate partner conviction in the past 5 years or were already on release for an intimate partner offence; you must appear before a justice for a bail decision (added after s. 499).
  • You may be detained up to 7 days for a risk-of-reoffending assessment at any stage, on a judge’s motion, or on request by the prosecutor or the alleged victim (added after s. 523).

• Police and prosecutors

  • Must hold certain suspects for a bail hearing in intimate partner cases with recent prior convictions or current release status (added after s. 499).
  • Must give notice within 30 days to the owner of seized property about the right to challenge detention (s. 490(3.2)).
  • May seek to extend detention of seized items up to 2 years and, if notice would jeopardize an investigation, may proceed without notice and in camera (s. 490(2)-(3.3)).

• Courts

  • Will handle more bail hearings in intimate partner cases due to limits on police release (added after s. 499).
  • May order risk-of-reoffending assessments with up to 7 days of custody and must bring the accused back “as soon as practicable” after completion (added after s. 523).
  • Will process longer default detention and extension orders for seized property and may proceed without notice and in private where justified (s. 490(2)-(3.3)).

• People whose property is seized

  • Default detention of seized items increases from 3 months to 1 year; total extensions may reach 2 years, subject to court orders (s. 490(2)-(3)).
  • You should receive notice within 30 days about your right to challenge, but notice can be skipped if it would jeopardize an investigation; a judge can then hear the matter without you and in private (s. 490(3.2)-(3.3)).

Expenses#

Estimated net cost: Data unavailable.

• Data unavailable.
• The bill contains no explicit appropriations or fees.
• Procedural changes could affect costs:
  • Added 7-day risk-of-reoffending assessments may increase custody days and assessment workload (added after s. 523).
  • Limits on police release may increase bail hearings and short-term detention (added after s. 499).
  • Higher maximum penalties could affect sentence lengths, but the bill sets maximums, not mandatory minimums (added after ss. 264, 264.1, 266, 267, 268).
  • Longer detention of seized property may increase storage and handling periods (s. 490(2)-(3)).

Proponents' View#

• Strengthens accountability for intimate partner violence by creating tailored offences with higher maximum penalties, signaling greater seriousness (added after ss. 264, 264.1, 266, 267, 268).
• Ensures the most serious penalty framework for intimate partner murder by classifying it as first-degree in all cases (s. 231(3.1)).
• Enhances victim safety by preventing police release of higher-risk accused (recent conviction or already on release), ensuring a prompt judicial bail review (added after s. 499).
• Improves bail decisions through evidence-based risk-of-reoffending assessments, available at any stage and on request by the prosecutor or the intimate partner (added after s. 523).
• Supports effective investigations by allowing seized property to be held longer when needed, while preserving owners’ rights through a 30-day notice of the right to challenge (s. 490(2)-(3.2)).

Opponents' View#

• Duplicates existing offences (criminal harassment, uttering threats, assault) and mainly raises maximum penalties, which may add complexity without clear impact on sentencing outcomes (compare existing ss. 264–268 with new intimate partner–specific provisions added after those sections).
• Classifying all intimate partner murders as first-degree removes case-by-case assessment of planning and deliberation and guarantees 25-year parole ineligibility, even where facts might otherwise support second-degree (s. 231(3.1)).
• Mandatory hold for some accused after arrest could increase pre-trial detention and court workload for bail hearings without a demonstrated safety benefit in all cases (added after s. 499).
• Up to 7 days of detention for risk assessments at any stage may extend custody for people not yet convicted and strain assessment capacity, potentially delaying proceedings (added after s. 523).
• Extending default detention of seized property to 1 year (and up to 2 years total) and allowing ex parte, in camera hearings can reduce transparency and delay property return, even to lawful owners (s. 490(2)-(3.3)).