Summary#

This bill changes Canada’s Criminal Code rule on jury secrecy. It keeps the ban on sharing what happened during jury deliberations but makes limited exceptions. The main new exception lets jurors talk to licensed health care professionals after the trial for treatment tied to their jury service (Bill s. 649(2)(c)). The bill takes effect 90 days after it receives Royal Assent.

• Lets jurors and certain support persons speak with licensed health care professionals about jury deliberations after the trial for treatment, therapy, or counselling (Bill s. 649(2)(c), s. 649(3)).
• Keeps all other disclosures of jury deliberations a summary conviction offence (Bill s. 649(1)).
• Confirms disclosures are also allowed for investigating or testifying about an alleged offence under Criminal Code s. 139(2) related to a juror (Bill s. 649(2)(a)-(b)).
• Applies to people who provided technical, personal, interpretative, or other support services to a juror with a physical disability (Bill s. 649(1), s. 649(2)(c)).
• Effective 90 days after Royal Assent.

What it means for you#

• Households

  • Jurors may discuss confidential jury-room matters with a licensed doctor, psychologist, therapist, or counsellor after the trial if it is for treatment of health issues from jury service (Bill s. 649(2)(c), s. 649(3)). This does not allow sharing with family, friends, media, or on social media.
  • Jurors still cannot disclose deliberations during the trial or for non-treatment reasons. Unauthorized disclosure remains an offence punishable on summary conviction (Bill s. 649(1)).

• Workers

  • Health care professionals licensed under provincial law may receive disclosures from jurors for treatment, therapy, or counselling after the trial, limited to health issues arising from jury service (Bill s. 649(2)(c), s. 649(3)). The bill does not create new reporting duties or programs.
  • People who provided support services to a juror with a physical disability may also seek treatment and disclose to licensed health care professionals under the same limits (Bill s. 649(1), s. 649(2)(c)).

• Businesses

  • No direct changes. Health clinics may see demand from jurors seeking post-trial counselling. Data unavailable.

• Courts and justice system

  • Jury instructions and post-trial materials may need updates to explain the health-care exception and its limits. Data unavailable.
  • Disclosures are also permitted when investigating or giving evidence about alleged offences under Criminal Code s. 139(2) related to a juror (Bill s. 649(2)(a)-(b)).

• Service users

  • Access to counselling about jury service is clearer. Discussions must be with a licensed health care professional and tied to treatment after the trial (Bill s. 649(2)(c), s. 649(3)).

Expenses#

Estimated net cost: Data unavailable.

• No appropriations, new agencies, or mandated programs appear in the bill text (Bill s. 649; Coming-into-Force).
• Federal implementation costs (e.g., updating forms, guidance): Data unavailable.
• Provincial/territorial health system impacts (e.g., counselling demand): Data unavailable.

Proponents' View#

• Improves access to mental health care for jurors by removing the legal barrier to discussing deliberations with licensed providers after the trial (Bill s. 649(2)(c), s. 649(3)).
• Keeps core jury secrecy intact because the exception is narrow: only after trial, only to licensed health care professionals, and only for treatment related to jury service (Bill s. 649(2)(c)).
• Protects trials from interference by limiting other disclosures and retaining penalties for unauthorized sharing (Bill s. 649(1)).
• Recognizes and supports people who provided disability-related support to jurors, giving them the same path to care (Bill s. 649(1), s. 649(2)(c)).
• Maintains exceptions for investigations and testimony about alleged offences under Criminal Code s. 139(2), aiding enforcement without broadening access to deliberation details (Bill s. 649(2)(a)-(b)).

Opponents' View#

• Risk that the health-care exception could weaken the tradition of strict jury secrecy if disclosures expand beyond treatment purposes; the bill does not set verification mechanisms for treatment intent (Bill s. 649(2)(c)).
• Possible uncertainty for jurors and providers about what is “related to” jury service and what is allowed to be shared, which may require guidance and training. Data unavailable.
• Health care professionals may receive sensitive information from jurors; while privacy laws apply, the bill does not address secondary disclosures or record-keeping, which could raise confidentiality concerns (Bill s. 649(3)).
• Enforcement remains complaint-driven; the bill does not change penalties or create new oversight, which could make improper disclosures hard to detect (Bill s. 649(1)).