Coercive Control Becomes a Crime

Summary#

This bill amends the Criminal Code to create a new offence for controlling or coercive conduct within close or household relationships. It targets repeated or continuous conduct that the person knows, or should know, would reasonably be expected to have a “significant impact,” and that actually has such an impact (Bill s.(1)). The bill defines who counts as “connected,” sets out what a “significant impact” means, creates a limited defence for certain caregiving situations, and makes the offence hybrid with a maximum penalty of 5 years (Bill s.(2)–(6)).

• Creates a new crime for patterns of controlling or coercive behaviour that cause fear of violence, harm health, or seriously disrupt daily life (Bill s.(1)–(2)).
• Applies to spouses, partners, certain relatives, and others living in the same household, including some former partners (Bill s.(3)).
• Requires proof that the conduct happened repeatedly or continuously, was foreseeably harmful, and did cause a significant impact (Bill s.(1)–(2)).
• Includes a defence for reasonable actions taken in the best interests of the person, but not for fear-of-violence cases (Bill s.(4)).
• Sets a hybrid offence: prosecutable by indictment (up to 5 years) or by summary conviction (Bill s.(6)).
• No stated delayed start; would come into force on Royal Assent absent another clause in the bill text.

What it means for you#

• Households

  • A person in your household can be charged if they repeatedly or continuously control or coerce you, and it causes fear of violence on more than one occasion, harms your physical or mental health, or seriously disrupts your daily life (Bill s.(1)–(2)).
  • “Connected” covers current spouses, common-law or dating partners, people who agreed to marry, and people in the same household who are relatives, former partners, engaged now or previously, or who share parental responsibilities for a child under 18 (Bill s.(3)).

• People in relationships

  • Repeated or ongoing controlling conduct that has a significant impact can be a crime even without physical assault. Examples of impacts include limits on social contact, absences from work or school, changes in routines, or having to move address (Bill s.(2)(c)(i)–(iv)).

• Caregivers and parents

  • There is a defence for conduct that caused health decline or serious daily-life disruption if you acted in the person’s best interests and your actions were reasonable in all the circumstances (Bill s.(4)). This defence does not apply if the case is based on repeated fear of violence (Bill s.(2)(a), s.(4)).
  • If you raise this defence with evidence, the court will treat those facts as proven unless the prosecution proves the contrary beyond a reasonable doubt (Bill s.(5)).

• Accused persons

  • If charged, you face a hybrid offence. On indictment, the maximum prison term is 5 years; on summary conviction, lower penalties apply (Bill s.(6)).

• Police, prosecutors, and courts

  • They can pursue cases based on patterns of conduct within defined relationships, not just isolated incidents. They must prove the conduct was repeated or continuous, was foreseeably harmful, and did cause a qualifying significant impact (Bill s.(1)–(2)).

• Timing

  • The bill has no coming-into-force clause in the text provided. If enacted, it would take effect on Royal Assent under standard rules.

Expenses#

Estimated net cost: Data unavailable.

• No explicit appropriations, funding programs, or fees are created in the bill text.
• Possible costs to police, prosecutors, legal aid, courts, and corrections from investigating, litigating, and sentencing new cases: Data unavailable.
• Training or guidance for law enforcement and Crown counsel may be needed to apply the new standard: Data unavailable.

Proponents' View#

• Fills a gap by addressing patterns of controlling or coercive behaviour that cause significant harm but may not fit existing single-incident offences (Bill s.(1)–(2)).
• Sets clear thresholds to avoid trivial cases: the conduct must be repeated or continuous, foreseeably harmful, and produce a “significant impact” such as repeated fear of violence, health decline, or substantial disruption of daily life (Bill s.(1)–(2)).
• Ensures broad protection across modern family structures, including dating partners and certain household relationships, not just spouses (Bill s.(3)).
• Provides a narrow safeguard for caregivers and parents by allowing a defence where actions were in the person’s best interests and reasonable, while excluding fear-of-violence cases to protect safety (Bill s.(4)).
• Hybrid classification gives prosecutors flexibility and allows proportionate sentencing from summary conviction up to 5 years on indictment (Bill s.(6)).

Opponents' View#

• Definitions may be too open-ended, risking uneven enforcement. Terms like “substantial adverse effect” and what is “reasonable” are not further defined beyond examples (Bill s.(2)(c)).
• Evidence challenges: proving “decline” in mental or physical health or linking absences and routine changes to the accused’s conduct may be difficult, raising trial complexity and costs (Bill s.(2)(b)–(c)).
• Scope concerns: the “connected” definition reaches relatives and former partners in the same household and people who agreed to marry (including where the agreement ended for co-residents), which could draw in complicated family disputes (Bill s.(3)(b)(i)–(iii)).
• Risk of over-criminalizing parental or caregiving decisions, with litigation hinging on the “best interests” and “reasonable” defence; once raised, the Crown must disprove it beyond a reasonable doubt (Bill s.(4)–(5)).
• Implementation burdens: police and prosecutors must show conduct was “repeatedly or continuously” and that fear of violence occurred on more than one occasion when that ground is used, which may require extensive evidence gathering (Bill s.(1), s.(2)(a)).