Harsher Sentences for Attacks on Health Workers, Responders

Summary#

This bill changes the Criminal Code to make assaults on health care professionals and first responders on duty an aggravating circumstance at sentencing. An “aggravating circumstance” means a judge must treat it as a factor that can increase the sentence. It applies to uttering threats to cause death or bodily harm and to assault offences. It does not create a new crime or a mandatory minimum sentence (Bill, new clause after s.269.01; applies to s.264.1(1)(a), ss.266-269).

• Judges must consider tougher sentences when the victim is a health care professional or first responder on duty (Bill, new clause after s.269.01).
• The rule covers threats and assaults under s.264.1(1)(a), 266, 267, 268, and 269 (Criminal Code).
• It does not change how guilt is decided or the legal maximum penalties.
• The Crown will need to show the victim’s job and that they were on duty when the offence happened.
• The bill does not define “health care professional” or “first responder.”
• The clause does not apply to the specific offence of “assaulting a peace officer” under s.270, which is not listed in the bill.

What it means for you#

• Households

  • If you threaten or assault a covered worker who is on duty, you face a higher risk of a longer sentence upon conviction (Bill, new clause after s.269.01).
  • Everyday interactions that do not involve threats or assault are not affected.

• Health care professionals (e.g., doctors, nurses, allied health)

  • Courts must treat your on-duty status as an aggravating factor at sentencing in threat and assault cases under s.264.1(1)(a), 266–269.
  • You may be asked to provide proof of your role and that you were on duty when the offence occurred.
  • This law does not guarantee a longer sentence; judges still decide the exact sentence within the legal range.

• First responders (e.g., paramedics, firefighters, police)

  • For convictions under the listed threat and assault sections, your on-duty status must be weighed as aggravating at sentencing.
  • Police cases commonly proceed under s.270 (assaulting a peace officer). That section is not listed in the bill, so this new aggravating clause would not apply to s.270 convictions. Other sentencing rules still apply.

• Defendants/accused persons

  • No new offence elements are created. The change applies only at sentencing after conviction.
  • If the victim fits the covered categories and was on duty, the court must consider a harsher sentence.

• Prosecutors and judges

  • The Crown will need to lead evidence of the victim’s occupation and on-duty status; courts must address this factor on the record at sentencing (Bill, new clause after s.269.01).
  • Judicial discretion remains. Courts set sentences within existing ranges.

• Hospitals, clinics, and emergency services

  • Expect requests for documentation to confirm an employee’s role and on-duty status at the time of the incident.
  • No reporting mandates or new compliance programs appear in the bill text.

Expenses#

Estimated net cost: Data unavailable.

• No direct appropriations, fees, or revenues are created by the bill (Bill text).
• Any impact on corrections or court workloads would be indirect and depends on future sentencing outcomes. Data unavailable.
• Administrative effort to prove on-duty status may increase slightly for prosecutors and employers. Data unavailable.
• No federal fiscal note identified. Data unavailable.

Proponents' View#

• It signals that attacks on those who care for and protect the public will face tougher sentencing, which may deter some incidents (Bill preamble; new clause after s.269.01).
• It targets serious conduct only: uttering threats to cause death or bodily harm and assault offences under s.266–269 (Criminal Code; Bill, new clause after s.269.01).
• It is narrow. The victim must be a health care professional or first responder and must be on duty at the time (Bill, new clause after s.269.01).
• It preserves judicial discretion. Judges still set sentences within the statutory range; there is no mandatory minimum (Bill text).
• It may improve confidence among health workers and first responders that the justice system values their safety (Bill preamble).

Opponents' View#

• Key terms are undefined. “Health care professional” and “first responder” are not defined in the bill, which could cause uneven application and litigation over who is covered (Bill text).
• Coverage is incomplete. The clause applies to s.264.1(1)(a) and ss.266–269, but not to s.270 (assaulting a peace officer), which may create charging inconsistencies for police cases (Bill, new clause after s.269.01).
• Deterrence is uncertain. Many assaults in clinical and emergency settings involve mental health crises or intoxication; the bill offers no evidence that longer sentences reduce such incidents. Data unavailable.
• Potential cost and capacity impacts are unknown. If sentences lengthen on average, provincial and federal corrections could face higher costs, with no official estimate. Data unavailable.
• Proof burdens may rise. Prosecutors must establish on-duty status; disputes over status could complicate some cases without improving safety outcomes (Bill, new clause after s.269.01).