Victims Gain Say Over Publication Bans

Summary#

This bill changes how Canadian courts issue and manage publication bans that protect the identity of victims and witnesses, especially in sexual offence cases. It adds consent rights for adult victims, requires better communication about bans, and creates a clear way to revoke or change a ban. It also updates training for judges and federal prosecutors about these orders and their impact.

• Requires prosecutors to take reasonable steps to consult victims before applying for a ban; judges must check that this happened (Criminal Code s. 486.4(3.1)).
• If an adult victim was consulted, the judge cannot order a ban without that victim’s consent (s. 486.4(3.2)).
• Prosecutors must notify every protected victim and witness when a ban is made and explain how to revoke or change it (s. 486.4(3.3)).
• Creates a court process that lets adult victims ask to revoke or vary a ban; courts must hold a hearing and may proceed without the accused present (s. 486.51(1), (3)).
• Lets adult victims use their victim impact statement to ask the court to revoke or vary a ban at sentencing (s. 722(2)(b), 722(8.1)).
• Adds training for judges and requires continuing education for federal prosecutors on these bans and their impact (Judges Act s. 60(3)(b); DPP Act s. 3(3)(c.1)).
• Includes coordinating rules so these changes fit with Bill S-12 if both laws take effect (Coordinating Amendments).

What it means for you#

• Households

  • Adult victims of sexual offences gain a choice about identity protection if consulted before a ban is sought; a judge cannot impose the ban without their consent (Criminal Code s. 486.4(3.2)).
  • If a ban is ordered, victims and witnesses must receive notice and clear instructions on how to ask the court to revoke or change it later (s. 486.4(3.3), 486.51).
  • Adult victims can ask for revocation or changes at any time; the court must hold a hearing and can grant the request if it will not identify other protected people (s. 486.51(1), (4)).
  • At sentencing, adult victims may include a request in their victim impact statement to revoke or change the ban; the court can act on it if safeguards are met (s. 722(2)(b), 722(8.1)).

• Workers

  • Victim support workers and advocates can expect clearer communication duties from prosecutors and a defined court pathway to change bans (s. 486.4(3.3); s. 486.51).

• Businesses and media

  • News outlets face no change to what a ban covers, but there is a new rule that if a court refuses to revoke or vary a ban, no one may publish the application, the hearing content, or any identifying information related to it (s. 486.51(6)).

• Prosecutors

  • Must take reasonable steps to consult victims before applying for a ban and be ready to confirm this to the judge (s. 486.4(3.1)).
  • Must notify all protected persons of any ban and explain revocation/variation procedures (s. 486.4(3.3)).
  • Federal prosecutors must participate in continuing education on sexual assault law and publication bans (DPP Act s. 3(3)(c.1)).

• Judges and courts

  • Must ask prosecutors whether they took reasonable steps to consult the victim before a ban application (s. 486.4(3.1)).
  • Cannot make a ban without the consent of a consulted adult victim in sexual offence cases (s. 486.4(3.2)).
  • Must hold a hearing on an adult victim’s application to revoke or vary a ban; may proceed ex parte (without the accused) (s. 486.51(1), (3)).
  • Judicial education may include the impact of publication bans on sexual assault complainants (Judges Act s. 60(3)(b)).

• Accused and defense

  • Revocation or variation hearings can occur without the accused present, but only about the ban, not guilt or sentence (s. 486.51(3)).

• Timing

  • Changes take effect when the bill becomes law, with coordinating clauses to align with Bill S-12 (Coordinating Amendments). Specific dates: Data unavailable.

Expenses#

• Estimated net cost: Data unavailable.
• Key points:
  • No direct appropriations or new fees stated in the bill text (Data unavailable).
  • New duties may create administrative and training costs for prosecution services and judicial education bodies (Judges Act s. 60(3)(b); DPP Act s. 3(3)(c.1)) — amounts: Data unavailable.
  • No official fiscal note identified — amounts and timelines: Data unavailable.

Proponents' View#

• Empowers adult victims to decide if they want identity protection; bans cannot be imposed without their consent if they were consulted (Criminal Code s. 486.4(3.2)).
• Reduces risk that victims unknowingly break a ban because prosecutors must notify them and explain how bans work and how to change them (s. 486.4(3.3)).
• Provides a clear, accessible path to revoke or vary bans, including at sentencing via the victim impact statement, which may reduce court time and confusion (s. 486.51; s. 722(2)(b), 722(8.1)).
• Adds training for judges and requires continuing education for federal prosecutors to improve consistent, trauma‑informed handling of bans (Judges Act s. 60(3)(b); DPP Act s. 3(3)(c.1)).
• Includes safeguards so changes to a ban cannot expose other victims or witnesses (s. 486.51(4)(b)).

Opponents' View#

• Consultation and consent requirements could delay ban applications in fast‑moving cases, increasing the risk of identity exposure if a victim is hard to reach (s. 486.4(3.1), (3.2)). The bill does not define “reasonable steps,” which could cause uneven practice.
• An adult victim’s refusal, when consulted, prevents a single order covering multiple people; courts and prosecutors may need separate applications to protect others, adding complexity (s. 486.4(3.2)). The bill does not spell out how to structure multi‑party orders.
• Ex parte hearings on revocation/variation may raise fairness concerns for the accused, even if limited to publication issues (s. 486.51(3)).
• New duties to notify all protected persons and to run hearings could add workload for courts and prosecution services; the bill provides no funding and no cost estimates (s. 486.4(3.3); s. 486.51) (Data unavailable).
• Coordinating clauses with Bill S-12 add legal complexity during rollout; differing in‑force dates could cause temporary confusion about the applicable process (Coordinating Amendments).