Status of Women committee  It was already in amendment G‑3. Sorry. Amendment G‑3 isn't related to amendment G‑9.

Status of Women committee  The goal of the amendment is to remove the part on social media. This will change the order of the paragraph letters. As a result, “(h)” becomes “(g)” and “(i)” becomes “(h).” The same changes had to be made to section 810.3.

Status of Women committee  Of course, if the other amendment weren't adopted, the committee wouldn't need this motion. The two amendments are connected.

Status of Women committee  To start out, G-3 is amending only clause 2. If there are other amendments in other clauses caused by these amendments, those will be brought, from my understanding, through other motions. It doesn't mean differences will remain. One renumbering that is probably the most helpful is....

Status of Women committee  First, G‑4 would provide greater consistency between the English and French versions. Second, the wording being proposed in G‑4 would match the language that appears in other peace bond provisions. The change has more to do with consistency, so there isn't a big impact. It still applies to the same people, the informant and the defendant.

Status of Women committee  Also, it would remove, for example, the reference to a “timely” order. The challenge with that is that it's not a defined term and there's significant variability, depending on the Canadian jurisdiction in which a peace bond is being sought, in terms of how long it takes, so it might be challenging in terms of implementation.

Status of Women committee  Sure. The amendments proposed in G-3 are technical in nature, to make the new peace bond in line with the language used in other peace bonds that already exist. That consistency helps in terms of interpreting when we get before the courts by using similar or the same language.

Status of Women committee  As we discussed briefly earlier, if “probable” is added, the challenge is that it's not used to date in this context. It's used in other contexts, like investigative powers, so we would have to wait and see how the case law interprets it. One of the possibilities is that it would make it harder to get the peace bond because it would be distinguishing a “reasonable” ground from a “reasonable and probable” ground, so it could potentially require more evidence of something to justify the fear.

Status of Women committee  Thank you for your question. I'll read what the Ontario Court of Appeal said in Budreo, in English. As far as the difference in meaning goes, the way “believes” is interpreted versus “fears” isn't really an issue. The Ontario Court of Appeal had this to say: “Fear alone connotes a state of belief or an apprehension that a future event, thought to be undesirable, may or will occur.”

Status of Women committee  The change in G-3 does not stop an intimate partner from requesting a peace bond directly. It just gives them the option, if they are scared, for example, to go through a police officer. It's reflecting the language in the other peace bonds, where often it may be a police officer who is bringing the claim and not necessarily the individual needing the protection, if that helps.

Status of Women committee  I don't know if it helps, but in paragraph (a) of G-3, “intimate partner” is still there. Any person can now relay the information or apply for the peace bond, but if you look further down, that person has to fear on reasonable grounds that somebody is going to cause a personal injury to the intimate partner's child or their own child.

Status of Women committee  As I said, it depends on how the courts will interpret this, because this is novel in the peace bond context. It's more common in relation to investigative powers—for example, warrants and so forth—which is probably where the inspiration for that term came from. We can't say for sure, but that is a possibility.

Status of Women committee  It's creating something new. We would have to see what the cases coming forward would interpret it as.

Status of Women committee  If it's about the intent, I might suggest that I'm not best placed to—

Status of Women committee  Here are some points for consideration. The subamendment relates, as was mentioned, to the tests that a woman would have to meet to get a peace bond against her intimate partner. The current tests set out in Bill S-205 and in amendment G-3 require that she establish a reasonable fear of her intimate partner causing personal injury.