Intimate Partner, Child Killings Automatically First Degree

Summary#

This bill would change the Criminal Code to make any murder of an intimate partner, one’s own child, or an intimate partner’s child automatically first degree, even if it was not planned or deliberate (Bill Clause 1; Criminal Code s.231). It does not change what counts as “murder,” but it changes how these murders are classified for sentencing.

• Reclassifies these murders as first degree by the victim’s relationship to the accused, not by planning (Bill Clause 1).
• Sets parole ineligibility at 25 years for these cases, because first degree murder has a fixed 25-year period before parole eligibility (Criminal Code s.745(a)).
• Removes the need for prosecutors to prove planning and deliberation in these cases (Bill Clause 1).
• Keeps the life sentence for murder; the change is the length of time before parole can be considered (Criminal Code s.745).
• Uses the Criminal Code definition of “intimate partner” (current or former spouse, common-law partner, or dating partner) (Criminal Code s.2).
• Takes effect on Royal Assent if passed, since no different coming-into-force date is stated (Interpretation Act s.5).

What it means for you#

• Households

  • If a person is convicted of murdering an intimate partner or their own/partner’s child, the conviction will be first degree by law, with parole ineligibility of 25 years (Bill Clause 1; Criminal Code s.745(a)).
  • The change applies going forward. Under the Charter, if penalties change between the offence and sentencing, the lesser punishment applies; this limits retroactive effect (Charter s.11(i)).

• Defendants and defense counsel

  • The Crown would not need to prove the killing was “planned and deliberate” if the victim fits one of the listed relationships (Bill Clause 1).
  • On conviction, parole ineligibility would be fixed at 25 years, instead of the current range of 10–25 years for second degree set by a judge (Criminal Code s.745, s.745.4).

• Victims’ families

  • Families in these cases could expect a minimum of 25 years before any parole hearing, creating a uniform timeline across Canada (Criminal Code s.745(a)).

• Prosecutors

  • Charging and trial strategy may focus more on proving the victim’s relationship to the accused, rather than proving planning and deliberation (Bill Clause 1; Criminal Code s.2).

• Courts

  • Trials may include more fact-finding on whether the victim was an “intimate partner” as defined, or a “child” of the accused or their partner. The bill does not define “child,” so courts would apply existing statutory definitions or case law (Bill Clause 1; Criminal Code s.2).

• Corrections and parole

  • Longer parole ineligibility for applicable cases may shift parole reviews later in time. The life sentence remains the same; only eligibility timing changes (Criminal Code s.745).

Expenses#

• Estimated net cost: Data unavailable.

• Key points

  • No direct spending or revenues are authorized in the bill (Bill Clause 1).
  • Possible cost pressure: more years served before parole eligibility for those who would otherwise have been sentenced for second degree murder with parole eligibility below 25 years (Criminal Code s.745, s.745.4). Data unavailable.
  • The scale depends on the number of applicable cases and parole outcomes. Data unavailable.
  • No official fiscal note identified. Data unavailable.

Proponents' View#

• Recognizes the gravity of intimate partner and child killings by ensuring the strictest murder classification, matching other categories already deemed first degree even without planning (e.g., certain killings in s.231) (Bill Clause 1; Criminal Code s.231).
• Provides uniform sentencing consequences nationwide: life imprisonment with 25-year parole ineligibility in all covered cases (Criminal Code s.745(a)).
• Eases prosecution by removing the need to prove planning and deliberation, which can be difficult in domestic settings where evidence may be limited (Bill Clause 1).
• Increases incapacitation of the most serious offenders for at least 25 years, which proponents argue could enhance public safety; the bill provides no supporting data (Bill Clause 1).
• Signals clear denunciation and may improve public confidence in how the justice system treats intimate partner and child murders; this is a value claim, not a measured effect.

Opponents' View#

• Eliminates judicial discretion to set parole ineligibility between 10–25 years for second degree cases, treating impulsive and premeditated killings the same if the victim fits the listed relationships (Bill Clause 1; Criminal Code s.745, s.745.4).
• May raise legal and practical disputes about who qualifies as an “intimate partner” or “child,” since the bill relies on existing definitions and does not define “child” in this context (Bill Clause 1; Criminal Code s.2).
• Could increase incarceration costs by extending parole ineligibility for some cases; no cost estimate is provided (Data unavailable).
• Shifts trial focus from planning/deliberation to relationship status, which could add litigation over personal histories and delay proceedings (Bill Clause 1; Criminal Code s.2).
• Risk of disproportionate impact if automatic first-degree classification leads to more contested trials and fewer resolutions, though the bill contains no data on this point (Data unavailable).