Justice committee  Proposed subsection 486.3(2) is a provision that prohibits the accused from cross-examining witnesses in cases involving certain offences. The existing list in the law as it is today includes criminal harassment and the three sexual assault offences. This is to try to minimize re

Justice committee  Again, that conduct couldn't be considered prohibited conduct unless it met the reasonableness test in the circumstances, so it may or may not be prohibited conduct.

Justice committee  The circumstances will include why the accused or the person is threatening suicide in that case. I would also underscore that the intent element has to be made out. Although I can't pronounce on what a court would find in a given case, you've described this example as an accused

Justice committee  I would point out that the term “safety” is already used in the criminal harassment and human trafficking offences and has been interpreted by appellate jurisprudence to include psychological safety. In that context, it has been interpreted to cover scenarios such as the 2020 Sin

Justice committee  What you're pointing to is potentially prohibited conduct that will have to be looked at through the reasonableness lens, which is objective but specific to the circumstances of the particular incident you've described. The anxiety of the person will have to be taken into account

Justice committee  If we look at proposed subsection 264.01(2), which is the definition of a pattern of conduct, it says, “A pattern of conduct consists of any combination, or any repeated instances, of any of the following acts”, and then it lists the three categories of different conduct. Yes, i

Justice committee  That in and of itself would not be enough to ground a conviction, no.

Justice committee  Like all the other examples of conduct in that list in the paragraphs, they are the types of conduct that, through Justice Canada's engagement process, we heard are usually engaged in by people who seek to coercively control their intimate partner. The offence is constructed care

Justice committee  Certainly, Chair. In the circumstance that Monsieur Fortin has described, you'd have a person who has threatened suicide or self-harm. Let's say a court has found that this act could reasonably be expected to cause the intimate partner to believe their safety is threatened. That

Justice committee  I'm not a prosecutor, but I do understand the components of this offence. What we heard during our engagement process was that this was one of many tactics that people who engage in coercive control of their intimate partners engage in. It would be part of a pattern of conduct, l

Justice committee  What we were trying to imply—and I'll state it directly now— is that if you were to do that, it would be inconsistent with what we've heard from stakeholders, including survivors, who wish to see their lived experiences in the legislation and feel very strongly that criminal just

Justice committee  Proposed paragraphs 264.01(1)(a) and 264.01(1)(b) articulate the mental element of the offence, so those are about what's going on in the accused's mind. If you look at Scotland's approach, you'll see that it's very similar. Scotland uses the concept of harm. We use the concept o

Justice committee  Proposed paragraph 264.01(2)(c) is obviously creating a non-exhaustive list, and that's been informed by what we heard during the course of Justice Canada's September-October 2023 engagement, as well as much testimony before this committee. My colleague Ellen can provide the comm

Justice committee  I would just note, from a technical perspective—

Justice committee  —that the way the amendments are drafted now imports the reasonable analysis to the third category of conduct only, the one that is largely non-criminal in nature. Putting “without reasonable cause” in the chapeau of proposed subsection 264.01(1) would allow that analysis to also