Summary#
This bill amends the Criminal Code of Canada to add a new aggravating factor at sentencing. If a person commits a crime and takes advantage of an evacuation order, a natural disaster, or another emergency, the court must treat that as an aggravating circumstance when deciding the sentence (Bill Clause 1; Criminal Code s.718.2(a)(iii.3)). It does not create a new crime or a mandatory minimum. It guides judges at sentencing.
- Judges must consider this as an aggravating factor and may impose a longer sentence when proven (Bill Clause 1; Criminal Code s.718.2(a)).
- It applies to any offence, not only theft or property crimes (Bill Clause 1).
- The Crown must prove the aggravating facts if the defence disputes them (Criminal Code s.724(3)).
- It preserves judicial discretion. No new offences or mandatory minimum penalties are created (Criminal Code s.718.2).
- It takes effect on Royal Assent, unless the Act states otherwise (Interpretation Act s.5).
What it means for you#
- Households and evacuees:
- If you are a victim of a crime during a lawful evacuation or emergency, the offender may face a tougher sentence if the court finds they took advantage of the situation (Bill Clause 1).
- Businesses:
- Crimes like looting or fraud that exploit an evacuation or emergency can draw higher sentences when the aggravating factor is proven (Bill Clause 1).
- Workers and first responders:
- No change to offences or duties. Sentencing may be higher for offenders who exploit the emergency conditions you work in (Bill Clause 1).
- Local and provincial governments:
- Courts and prosecutors may rely on proof that an evacuation order was lawful and in force. You may receive requests for official records to support sentencing (Bill Clause 1).
- Defendants and accused persons:
- If you commit an offence and the court finds you took advantage of an evacuation order, a natural disaster, or another emergency, the sentence may increase. The Crown must prove the aggravating circumstance if disputed (Bill Clause 1; Criminal Code s.724(3)).
- Timing:
- Takes effect on Royal Assent; date not yet specified in the bill text provided (Interpretation Act s.5).
Expenses#
Estimated net cost: Data unavailable.
- No fiscal note located. Data unavailable.
- The bill adds a sentencing factor only. It includes no appropriations, new programs, or fees (Bill Clause 1).
- Any change in incarceration costs would depend on case-by-case sentencing outcomes. Data unavailable.
Proponents' View#
- Improves protection for communities during disasters by deterring crimes that target people when they are most vulnerable (Bill Clause 1).
- Promotes consistent sentencing across courts by naming this factor in the Criminal Code instead of leaving it only to general principles (Criminal Code s.718.2(a)).
- Targets only offenders who “took advantage” of the situation; not every crime during a disaster qualifies (Bill Clause 1).
- Preserves judicial discretion and proportionality. It adds a factor to consider; it does not create mandatory minimums or new offences (Criminal Code s.718.2).
- Aligns with Parliament’s list of specific aggravating factors for particularly harmful conduct (Criminal Code s.718.2(a)).
Opponents' View#
- Redundant with existing law because judges can already treat disaster-related conduct as aggravating under the general sentencing principles (Criminal Code s.718.2(a)).
- Phrases like “other emergency” are not defined in the bill, which could lead to uneven application across cases and regions (Bill Clause 1).
- Proving that an offender “took advantage” may require contested fact-finding, adding time and complexity to sentencing hearings (Criminal Code s.724(3)).
- If sentences increase, custody costs could rise, but there is no fiscal estimate to quantify the impact. Data unavailable.
- May have uneven effects in areas that experience frequent emergencies; the scale of any such effect is uncertain and assumes patterns not shown in available data. Data unavailable.