Tougher Sentences for Assaults on Caregivers, Responders

Summary#

This bill amends the Criminal Code to make assaults and certain threats against people who provide health services and first responders an aggravating factor at sentencing. It does not create a new crime. It directs judges to consider tougher penalties within the existing sentencing range when these victims are involved (Clause 1).

• Requires courts to treat the victim’s role as an aggravating factor when sentencing for uttering threats to cause death or bodily harm (s.264.1(1)(a)) and for assault offences (ss.266–269) (Clause 1).
• Covers “persons who provide health services, including personal care services” and “first responders engaged in the performance of their duty” (Clause 1).
• Applies at sentencing only; prosecutors must prove the victim fits the listed category at the time of the offence (Clause 1).
• May lead to longer jail terms, probation, or fines in affected cases; no mandatory minimums are added (Clause 1).
• Preamble cites increasing incidents and the need for these workers to feel protected by the justice system (Preamble).

What it means for you#

• Households and the public

  • If you are convicted of assaulting or making qualifying threats against a covered worker, you face a higher likelihood of a harsher sentence than in a comparable case without this factor (Clause 1).
  • The elements of the crimes do not change. The change applies only after conviction, at sentencing (Clause 1).

• People who provide health services (including personal care)

  • Courts must treat your status as an aggravating factor in sentencing when you are the victim of assault or qualifying threats (Clause 1).
  • The text does not state you must be “on duty” for this to apply; it refers to being “a person who provides health services” at the time of the offence (Clause 1).

• First responders

  • Courts must treat your status as an aggravating factor only when you are “engaged in the performance of [your] duty” at the time of the offence (Clause 1).
  • If an incident happens off duty, this specific aggravating factor would not apply (Clause 1).

• Employers (hospitals, clinics, care homes, emergency services)

  • You may be asked to provide documentation to help establish that an employee is a covered victim at the time of the offence (Clause 1).
  • No new compliance program is created. Existing reporting and cooperation with police/Crown continue (Clause 1).

• Police, prosecutors, and courts

  • Must identify eligible cases and present evidence of the victim’s status (e.g., job role, on-duty status for first responders) so the court can apply the aggravating factor (Clause 1).
  • The bill lists only certain offences (s.264.1(1)(a), ss.266–269). Cases charged under other sections are not covered by this specific clause (Clause 1).

• Timing

  • The bill contains no separate coming-into-force clause in the excerpt provided; such amendments typically take effect on Royal Assent unless specified otherwise (Clause 1).

Expenses#

Estimated net cost: Data unavailable.

• No fiscal note or cost estimate is publicly provided. Data unavailable.
• The bill adds no appropriations, fees, or taxes. It changes sentencing considerations only (Clause 1).
• Potential indirect impacts (no estimates provided): more time in custody for some offenders, added evidentiary steps at sentencing, and related corrections and court costs. Data unavailable.

Proponents' View#

• It directs judges to impose tougher sentences when these workers are victims, improving denunciation and deterrence through a clear statutory aggravating factor (Clause 1).
• It responds to concerns about rising incidents of violence against health workers and first responders (Preamble).
• It recognizes personal care workers alongside regulated health professionals, closing a perceived gap in protection (Clause 1).
• It can promote greater consistency in sentencing nationwide by making the factor mandatory for courts to consider (“shall consider”) (Clause 1).
• It complements existing offences by ensuring that, when charges proceed under the general assault or threats provisions, the victim’s role is still formally weighed at sentencing (Clause 1).

Opponents' View#

• It may be redundant: assault and threats are already crimes, and judges can already weigh victim circumstances; the bill may not meaningfully change outcomes in many cases. Data unavailable.
• Scope and drafting concerns: for health service providers, the text does not require the victim to be on duty, while it does for first responders, which may create inconsistent application (Clause 1).
• Under-inclusiveness and overlap: the clause does not list assaulting a peace officer (s.270 and related) among the covered sections, which could yield uneven treatment depending on how charges are laid (Clause 1).
• Undefined terms: “first responder” and “health services” (beyond “including personal care services”) are not defined in the bill text provided, which could create uncertainty and litigation over who is covered (Clause 1).
• Possible cost and capacity impacts: longer sentences could increase corrections costs and jail crowding without accompanying funding or evidence of deterrent effect. Data unavailable.