Courts Could Ban Offenders' Online Posts About Victims

Summary#

This bill would let courts order an accused, defendant, or offender to stop posting or sharing any online information about a victim. It adds this option at many stages: release, detention, peace bonds (recognizances), sentencing, probation, and conditional sentences. It also adds a right in the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights to have authorities take reasonable and necessary steps to prevent the offender from putting victim information online (Clause 14).

• Courts could add a condition to “abstain from publishing, distributing, transmitting or making accessible on the Internet any information concerning the victim” at bail, remand, and detention decisions (Clauses 1–5).
• Judges could add the same condition at sentencing, probation, conditional sentences, and non‑communication orders (Clauses 6–9).
• Peace bonds under sections 810, 810.02, and 810.1 could include this online publication ban; in s.810 the court must consider this condition (Clauses 10–12).
• Victims gain a right to have authorities take reasonable and necessary measures to prevent an offender from posting their information online (Clause 14).
• If Bill S‑205 (domestic violence recognizance) also becomes law, the same condition would apply there (Clause 15 coordinating amendment).
• The bill targets only the accused/offender’s online conduct. It does not create a general publication ban on the public or media (Clauses 1–12, 14).

What it means for you#

• Households and victims

  • You could ask prosecutors to seek a court order that bars the accused/offender from posting any online information about you. Courts would have legal authority to add this condition at multiple stages (Clauses 1–9).
  • In peace bond cases under s.810, the judge must consider whether to add this online condition to protect the informant or related persons (Clause 10).
  • You gain a statutory right to have authorities take reasonable and necessary steps to prevent the offender from posting your information online (Clause 14).
  • The term “information concerning the victim” is not defined in the bill. The order’s scope would be set by the court’s wording (Clauses 1–12, 14).

• Accused, defendants, and offenders

  • A judge may order you not to publish, share, or make available on the Internet any information about the victim. This can be a condition of release, detention, sentencing, probation, conditional sentence, or a peace bond (Clauses 1–12).
  • For peace bonds under s.810, the court must consider this condition; in other contexts, it is discretionary (“may order”) (Clauses 2–5, 8–12).
  • Non‑compliance with court‑ordered conditions remains subject to existing Criminal Code enforcement for breaches. This bill does not change penalties for breaches (Clauses 1–12).

• Prosecutors and police

  • You would have clearer authority to request, and enforce, online non‑publication conditions tied to victims at more decision points (Clauses 1–12, 14).
  • The Victims Bill of Rights addition creates a right that may prompt requests for action to prevent offender postings. The bill does not prescribe specific tools or procedures (Clause 14).

• Courts

  • You may add the online publication condition at bail, detention, sentencing, probation, conditional sentences, and non‑communication orders; and you must consider it in s.810 peace bonds (Clauses 1–12).
  • If S‑205 is in force, you may also add this condition to the domestic‑violence recognizance regime (Clause 15).

• Online platforms and media

  • The bill does not impose duties on platforms or media. It restricts the accused/offender’s online conduct. Authorities may seek compliance using existing processes, but the bill creates no new platform obligations (Clauses 1–12, 14).

Expenses#

• Estimated net cost: Data unavailable.

• Key points

  • No direct appropriations, new fees, or revenue measures in the bill (Clauses 1–15).
  • The bill adds court‑order options and a Victims Bill of Rights provision but does not fund implementation. Administrative and enforcement costs: Data unavailable.

Proponents' View#

• Expands victim protection to the online sphere by allowing judges to bar accused/offenders from posting any victim information, closing a gap in current non‑communication orders that focus on direct contact (Clauses 2–5, 8–9, 13).
• Provides a clear, uniform tool at many stages of a case (bail, detention, sentencing, supervision, peace bonds), which could reduce online exposure of victims’ identities or personal details (Clauses 1–12).
• Gives victims a defined right to have authorities take reasonable and necessary measures to prevent offender postings, improving responsiveness and accountability (Clause 14).
• Keeps judicial discretion and tailoring. Most provisions say “may order,” allowing judges to set scope and conditions appropriate to the case (Clauses 1–9, 11–12).
• Coordinates with domestic‑violence recognizance reforms so the same protection applies there if S‑205 is enacted (Clause 15).

Opponents' View#

• Freedom of expression concerns: limiting an accused/offender’s online speech may engage Charter s.2(b) rights. The phrase “information concerning the victim” is undefined, which could make orders overbroad or vague (Clauses 1–12, 14).
• Implementation and enforcement risk: the bill adds no enforcement procedures and no platform obligations, which may make online monitoring and takedown difficult across services and jurisdictions (Clauses 1–12, 14).
• Inconsistent application: most provisions are discretionary (“may order”), which could lead to uneven use across courts and regions (Clauses 1–9, 11–12).
• Potential overlap with existing tools (e.g., non‑communication orders, peace bonds). Without guidance on when to use this new condition, proceedings could become more complex and take more court time. Data unavailable (Clauses 2–5, 8–12).