Tougher Bail Rules for Repeat Serious Charges

Summary#

This bill changes the Criminal Code rules for bail when a person is already on release and gets charged again. It creates a much tougher standard for release if the person has been charged more than twice with certain serious crimes while on release. Judges must keep such people in custody unless there are “exceptional circumstances” to let them out (Bill: replaces Criminal Code s.524(4)).

• Sets a default of detention after a release is cancelled, unless the accused shows why detention is not needed under existing bail factors (Criminal Code s.515(10)).
• Adds a stricter rule for people charged more than twice with an indictable offence punishable by 5+ years while on a summons, appearance notice, undertaking, or release order (Bill: s.524(4)(b)).
• Uses an “exceptional circumstances” test for release in those repeat-charge cases, which is a higher bar than normal (Bill: s.524(4)(b)).
• Applies based on charges, not convictions (Bill: s.524(4)(b)).
• Does not define “exceptional circumstances,” leaving courts to interpret the term (Bill: s.524(4)(b)).

What it means for you#

• Households

  • If a family member is charged more than twice with a listed serious offence while on release, they will likely stay in custody before trial unless they can show exceptional reasons to be released. This can affect childcare, income, and travel to visit remand centers (Bill: s.524(4)(b)).
  • For other accused whose release is cancelled, judges will still decide bail using the usual factors: risk of not showing up, risk to public safety, and confidence in justice (Criminal Code s.515(10)).

• Workers and accused persons

  • People in the repeat-charge category face a strong presumption of detention. This can interrupt jobs and schooling until the court decides the case or grants release due to exceptional circumstances (Bill: s.524(4)(b)).
  • Defence lawyers will need to prepare evidence of “exceptional circumstances” for clients who fall under the new rule. The standard is higher than normal show-cause hearings (Bill: s.524(4)(b); Criminal Code s.515(10)).

• Businesses and employers

  • Employees who fall under the repeat-charge rule may be held in custody longer before trial, which can affect staffing and scheduling (Bill: s.524(4)(b)).

• Police and prosecutors

  • Police and Crown will need to present reliable records of prior charges laid while the accused was on release to trigger the new rule (Bill: s.524(4)(b)).
  • More contested bail hearings may occur for repeat-charge cases, as defence seeks to show exceptional circumstances (Bill: s.524(4)(b)).

• Courts and jails

  • Courts may see longer or more complex bail hearings for the repeat-charge group because the bar for release is higher (Bill: s.524(4)(b)).
  • Provincial remand facilities may see more admissions and longer stays for this group, since detention is the default unless exceptional circumstances exist (Bill: s.524(4)(b)). Data on scale: Data unavailable.

• Timing

  • The bill contains no delayed implementation clause; Criminal Code amendments generally take effect on Royal Assent (Bill text provides no separate coming-into-force section).

Expenses#

Estimated net cost: Data unavailable.

• No fiscal note or cost estimate was identified. Data unavailable.
• The bill creates no new federal funding or fees. Data unavailable.
• Practical budget impacts (such as remand costs) would fall mainly on provinces and territories that operate jails; the bill does not include transfers to offset these costs. Data unavailable.

Proponents' View#

• Targets repeat serious offending on bail by requiring detention unless there are exceptional reasons to release, which they argue can improve public safety and reduce reoffending while on release (Bill: s.524(4)(b)).
• Focuses on serious cases only: the trigger is more than two charges for indictable offences punishable by 5+ years, and only when those charges occurred while the person was on a release document (Bill: s.524(4)(b)).
• Keeps the standard bail test for everyone else, so first-time or less serious cases are unaffected (Criminal Code s.515(10); Bill: s.524(4)(a)).
• Leaves judicial discretion to release in exceptional cases, so judges can account for unique facts, such as strong supervision plans or clear errors in prior charges (Bill: s.524(4)(b)).
• Aligns with existing reverse-onus concepts used elsewhere in bail law for defined situations, proponents may argue, while narrowing it to a specific repeat-charge pattern (structure parallels reverse-onus approach in Criminal Code s.515(6); bill applies at s.524 stage).

Opponents' View#

• Uses charges rather than convictions to trigger near-automatic detention, raising fairness concerns because charges can later be withdrawn or dismissed (Bill: s.524(4)(b)).
• “Exceptional circumstances” is not defined, which can cause uneven outcomes across courts and increase litigation over what qualifies (Bill: s.524(4)(b)).
• May conflict with the “ladder principle” and restraint in bail, which the Supreme Court has emphasized, creating Charter risk under the right to reasonable bail (R. v. Antic, 2017 SCC 27; Canadian Charter s.11(e)). Courts have struck down or narrowed overbroad bail rules in the past (R. v. Morales, [1992] 3 SCR 711; R. v. Hall, 2002 SCC 64; see also R. v. St-Cloud, 2015 SCC 27).
• Could increase the remand population and related provincial costs and crowding, because detention is the default for the repeat-charge group and the bar for release is high. The bill provides no funding to address capacity. Data unavailable.
• May have disproportionate effects on groups already overrepresented in pretrial detention, such as Indigenous peoples, if they are more likely to face multiple charges while on release. Quantitative impact: Data unavailable.