Bill C-14, the Bail and Sentencing Reform Act, received Royal Assent on June 15, 2026, and its bail and sentencing provisions took effect one month later. It amends the Criminal Code, the Youth Criminal Justice Act, and the National Defence Act across more than 80 clauses.
The federal government announced these reforms in Surrey, BC — no accident. British Columbia’s Attorney General actively lobbied for them, and BC courts will be among the busiest laboratories for how they play out. Here is what the new law actually does, and what it means for accused persons in this province.
Key Takeaways
Bill C-14’s bail reforms came into force on July 15, 2026, creating seven new reverse-onus categories where the accused — not the Crown — must justify release.
The “ladder principle” from R. v. Antic, 2017 SCC 27 no longer applies to reverse-onus cases, and Parliament has re-framed the principle of restraint.
The lookback period for the weapons-violence reverse onus has doubled from 5 to 10 years.
Courts must now weigh the number and seriousness of outstanding charges under the tertiary ground, and new surety restrictions limit who can supervise your release.
A properly prepared release plan matters more than ever — and Charter challenges under s. 11(e) are all but certain.
What Is Bill C-14, the Bail and Sentencing Reform Act?
Bill C-14 is one of three criminal justice bills passed in June 2026, alongside the Combatting Hate Act and the Protecting Victims Act. Its stated targets are repeat violent offending, organized crime, extortion, auto theft, and intimate partner violence.
On the bail side, the Act rewrites core parts of Part XVI of the Criminal Code — the judicial interim release provisions centred on s. 515. On the sentencing side, it adds aggravating factors, mandates consecutive sentences for certain offence combinations, removes conditional sentences for serious sexual offences, and restores driving prohibitions for manslaughter and criminal negligence causing death or bodily harm.
In my practice, the bail amendments are the ones with immediate, daily consequences. Sentencing changes bite months or years into a prosecution. Bail changes bite within hours of arrest.
The New Reverse Onuses: Detention Is Now the Starting Point for More People
Under s. 515, the default rule has always been that the Crown must show cause why an accused should be detained. A “reverse onus” flips that presumption: the accused must show cause why they should be released. Bill C-14 creates new reverse onuses for:
violent or organized crime-related auto theft;
break and enter of a dwelling-house;
trafficking in persons and human smuggling;
assaults and sexual assaults involving choking, suffocation, or strangulation;
extortion involving violence; and
any serious violent offence where the accused has two or more prior convictions for similar offences.
Two further changes deserve close attention. First, the existing reverse onus for offences involving violence with a weapon now reaches back 10 years into an accused’s record instead of 5. A conviction from 2017 that would have been irrelevant at a bail hearing in June is now determinative of who bears the onus in July. Second, there is a new reverse onus after a finding of guilt where the Crown seeks to revoke bail pending sentencing — a stage where many of my clients previously remained on their existing release.
The Supreme Court of Canada upheld the constitutionality of reverse-onus bail provisions in R. v. Pearson, [1992] 3 S.C.R. 665 and struck down an overbroad ground of detention in its companion case R. v. Morales, [1992] 3 S.C.R. 711. Whether these new, much broader categories survive s. 11(e) Charter scrutiny — the right not to be denied reasonable bail without just cause — is a live question that BC courts will confront soon.
The Ladder Principle and the Principle of Restraint After C-14
In R. v. Antic, 2017 SCC 27, the Supreme Court affirmed the “ladder principle”: release on the least onerous terms comes first, and the Crown must justify each step up the ladder toward sureties, cash deposits, and stricter conditions. Three years later, R. v. Zora, 2020 SCC 14 reinforced the principle of restraint, holding that bail conditions must be minimal, necessary, and tied to a specific risk the accused actually poses.
Bill C-14 pushes back on both. Parliament has now legislated that the ladder principle does not apply to accused persons subject to a reverse onus, and has “clarified” that the principle of restraint does not mandate release where detention is justified for public safety. The Act also directs courts to require that a reverse-onus accused clearly demonstrate their bail plan addresses the risks they pose.
Does the case law still matter?
Yes — and this is where the defence work gets interesting. Antic and Zora interpret s. 11(e) of the Charter, not merely the old statutory text. Parliament can amend the Criminal Code; it cannot amend the Charter by ordinary legislation. The Department of Justice’s own backgrounder concedes that the principle of restraint “would continue to apply at common law” even if repealed. Expect defence counsel across BC to argue that the constitutional floor set by the Supreme Court remains exactly where it was on July 14.
Tougher Grounds for Detention, Conditions, and Surety Rules
Beyond the reverse onuses, three changes will shape everyday bail hearings in Vancouver and across the province.
The tertiary ground. Under s. 515(10)(c), bail can be denied to maintain public confidence in the administration of justice — a ground the Supreme Court analyzed in R. v. St-Cloud, 2015 SCC 27. C-14 now requires courts to consider the number and seriousness of an accused’s outstanding charges under this ground. For clients with multiple open files — common in busy urban courts — this raises the stakes considerably.
Random or unprovoked violence. Courts must now weigh whether the allegations involve random or unprovoked violence in every bail decision, alongside the existing intimate partner violence and prior-record factors.
Sureties and conditions. A person convicted of a serious offence within the past 10 years generally cannot act as a surety, unless no other suitable surety exists and naming them is in the interests of justice. Courts must also consider specific conditions — curfews, geographic bans, non-communication orders, weapons prohibitions — for extortion, organized crime, auto theft, and residential break and enter cases.
What This Means for Accused Persons in BC and the Yukon
Here is the practical reality I am already seeing. If you are arrested in British Columbia today on a charge that attracts one of the new reverse onuses, you should assume the Crown will oppose release and that the justice will start from a presumption of detention. The days of showing up to a bail hearing and relying on the Crown’s burden are over for a large class of charges.
What does a criminal defence lawyer in BC examine in this new environment? The factors a defence lawyer will scrutinize include: whether the charge actually falls within a reverse-onus category as pleaded, since Crown charging decisions are not always precise; whether prior convictions relied on for the 10-year lookback genuinely qualify as “similar” offences; the strength and verifiability of the proposed release plan, including residence, employment, treatment, and supervision; the eligibility of proposed sureties under the new disqualification rules; and whether the provision itself is vulnerable to a s. 11(e) challenge on the facts of the case.
The bail plan is now the centre of gravity. A vague promise to “stay out of trouble” was never persuasive; under C-14 it is fatal. A detailed, evidence-backed plan that maps each proposed condition onto each alleged risk is the single most valuable thing counsel can bring into a bail court. That takes preparation before the hearing — which is why retaining counsel immediately after arrest matters more under this regime than it ever has.
For clients in the Yukon, the same Criminal Code amendments apply, but smaller communities and limited court resources make the practical effect of detention even harsher — remand often means transfer far from family and work. Those realities remain relevant considerations on any bail application.
Charter Challenges Are Coming
Every major bail reform in Canadian history has been tested against s. 11(e), and C-14 will be no exception. The pressure points are visible already: the exclusion of the ladder principle for reverse-onus accused, the sheer breadth of the new reverse-onus categories, and the doubled lookback period. Courts will also have to reconcile stricter detention rules with s. 7 liberty interests and with the chronic problem of trial delay under R. v. Jordan, 2016 SCC 27 — more people detained longer while awaiting trial creates its own constitutional strain.
None of this means the law will be struck down. It means the first wave of contested bail hearings and reviews under C-14 will shape how much of the old jurisprudence survives. Those arguments are being built in BC courtrooms right now.
Frequently Asked Questions
When did Bill C-14’s bail changes take effect?
The bail and sentencing reforms came into force on July 15, 2026, one month after the Act received Royal Assent on June 15, 2026. They apply to bail hearings held on or after that date.
What is a “reverse onus” at a bail hearing?
Normally the Crown must show cause why an accused should be detained. In a reverse-onus case, the presumption flips: the accused must satisfy the court that detention is not justified. Bill C-14 added seven new categories, including residential break and enter, violent extortion, and assaults involving strangulation.
Can I still get bail if I have a criminal record in BC?
Yes, but the path is harder. Prior convictions within 10 years can trigger a reverse onus for weapons-violence charges, and two or more prior convictions for similar violent offences now do the same. A strong, verifiable release plan and, where possible, a qualified surety become critical.
Who can act as a surety under the new rules?
A surety must generally not have been convicted of a serious offence within the past 10 years. Courts retain a narrow discretion to accept such a person if no other suitable surety is available and it is in the interests of justice.
Do I need a lawyer for a bail hearing?
You are entitled to counsel, and under the new regime the quality of preparation before the hearing often determines the outcome. An unsuccessful bail hearing also limits your options, since subsequent review applications face a higher bar. Speaking with a bail hearing lawyer before your first appearance is strongly advisable.
At my Vancouver criminal defence practice, we remain committed to upholding clients’ rights amid these reforms. If you or a loved one are affected by criminal charges, seeking tailored advice early can make all the difference.
This blog post is for educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Every case is unique. Contact a qualified criminal defence lawyer for advice specific to your situation.
As a Vancouver criminal defence lawyer with years of experience navigating the complexities of the Criminal Code and Charter rights in British Columbia courts, I’ve seen firsthand how shifts in bail and sentencing can profoundly affect accused persons, their families, and the justice system itself. Just days ago, on June 15-16, 2026, the Bail and Sentencing Reform Act (Bill C-14) received Royal Assent, ushering in over 80 targeted amendments to the Criminal Code, the Youth Criminal Justice Act, and related statutes. These changes, set to come into force on July 15, 2026, represent one of the most significant overhauls to bail and sentencing in recent memory.
For those facing criminal charges in Vancouver, Surrey, or across B.C., understanding these reforms isn’t optional—it’s essential. In this post, I break down the key developments, their legal context, practical implications for defendants and practitioners, and what they mean for the future of Canadian criminal law.
The Hook: Public Safety vs. Presumption of Innocence
Canadians have grown increasingly concerned about repeat violent offending, auto theft rings, home invasions, and organized crime. Bill C-14 responds directly to these pressures, backed by input from law enforcement, provinces (including B.C.), and victims’ advocates. Proponents argue it will keep dangerous individuals off the streets while restoring public confidence in the justice system.
Critics, including defence counsel and civil liberties groups, caution that expanded reverse onus provisions, restrictions on sureties, and mandatory consecutive sentences risk tilting the scales too far, potentially leading to unnecessary pre-trial detention and longer sentences that may not always serve rehabilitation or proportionality goals. As defence lawyers, our role remains to zealously advocate within this new framework—protecting Charter rights under sections 11(d) (presumption of innocence), 11(e) (reasonable bail), and 7 (liberty and security of the person).
Key Changes to Bail Laws: Harder Release for Certain Accused
The reforms introduce stricter bail procedures, particularly targeting repeat and violent offenders. Here are the highlights:
• Expanded Reverse Onus Provisions: New reverse onus rules apply to offences like home break-and-enter, human trafficking, human smuggling, assaults or sexual assaults involving choking/suffocation/strangulation, and violent extortion. For those with multiple prior violent convictions, the burden shifts to the accused to justify release. Existing reverse onuses (e.g., for certain weapon offences) have been expanded from 5 to 10 years.
• Refinements to Core Principles: The “principle of restraint” (favouring release at the earliest opportunity) is clarified—not a blanket mandate for release if detention is justified for public safety. The “ladder principle” (least onerous conditions first) no longer applies in reverse onus cases. Courts must now explicitly consider random or unprovoked violence, the number/seriousness of outstanding charges, and stronger weapons prohibitions.
• Surety and Conditions Restrictions: Individuals convicted of serious offences in the past 10 years are generally barred from acting as sureties. Courts must scrutinize bail plans more rigorously in reverse onus scenarios and consider specific conditions (e.g., curfews, geographic limits, no-contact orders) for offences like auto theft or home invasion.
These changes build on Supreme Court of Canada precedents like R. v. Antic (2017) on the ladder principle and R. v. St-Cloud (2015) on the tertiary ground for detention, but they codify a more cautious approach. In B.C. courts, where backlogs and resource pressures are real, expect more contested bail hearings and potentially higher detention rates for qualifying offences.
Tougher Sentencing: Consecutive Terms and Aggravating Factors
On the sentencing side, Bill C-14 aims to ensure “serious crimes meet serious consequences”:
• Consecutive Sentences: Mandatory for certain combinations like extortion and arson, or violent auto theft and break-and-enter. Judges must consider consecutive sentences for repeat violent offenders.
• New Aggravating Factors: Enhanced weight for crimes against first responders or public transit workers, organized retail theft, mischief/theft damaging essential infrastructure (e.g., copper theft), and repeat violent offending.
• Other Reforms: Ends conditional sentences (house arrest) for certain serious sexual offences; restores driving prohibitions for manslaughter and criminal negligence causing death/bodily harm; strengthens fine enforcement.
These align with sentencing objectives in s. 718 of the Criminal Code—denunciation, deterrence, and separation—while giving primary consideration to denunciation and deterrence for repeat auto theft or break-and-enter. They echo trends in cases addressing the “revolving door” of justice, but defence counsel will continue to emphasize mitigating factors like Gladue principles for Indigenous accused, mental health, and rehabilitation potential.
Implications for Practitioners and Defendants in Vancouver Criminal Law
For accused persons in British Columbia, the practical fallout is significant. In Vancouver’s busy courthouses, we may see:
• Fewer Releases on Serious Charges: Reverse onus cases will demand meticulously prepared bail plans, often with enhanced sureties, electronic monitoring, or treatment programs. Early intervention—gathering character references, proposing robust plans, or challenging weak Crown evidence—becomes even more critical.
• Sentencing Strategy Shifts: Expect prosecutors to push for consecutive sentences and aggravating factors aggressively. Defence will need to advocate vigorously for concurrent sentencing where possible, highlight proportionality under s. 718.1, and explore alternatives like restorative justice or mental health diversions where available.
• Charter Challenges Ahead: Many provisions engage s. 11(e) rights. We anticipate litigation testing whether expanded reverse onuses or modified restraint principles unjustifiably limit liberty. Precedents like R. v. Morales (1992) and R. v. Hall (2002) on reverse onus will be central.
• Youth and Systemic Impacts: Amendments to the Youth Criminal Justice Act and data collection requirements aim for better tracking, but defence must guard against over-criminalization of young persons.
Locally in B.C., the provincial government has welcomed the changes, signaling preparedness for implementation. However, court resources, bail supervision, and legal aid capacity will be tested. As a Vancouver-based lawyer, I stress that these reforms do not eliminate the presumption of innocence or the right to a fair trial—they recalibrate the balance.
Defendants should contact experienced counsel immediately upon charge. Early strategy can make the difference between pre-trial detention and release, or between a crushing sentence and one tailored to circumstances.
Practical Takeaways for Those Facing Charges
1. Act Quickly: Bail hearings move fast. Gather evidence for your release plan early—employment, housing, supports, and proposed conditions.
2. Understand Your Onus: If reverse onus applies, the burden is on you. Strong legal representation is non-negotiable.
3. Sentencing Preparation: Focus on mitigation from day one. Character letters, expert reports (e.g., psychological), and guilty plea timing matter more than ever.
4. Stay Informed: Watch for implementation details post-July 15, 2026. Provincial variations in B.C. courts will emerge.
5. Broader Justice Issues: While tougher laws address public concerns, long-term safety requires investment in prevention, mental health, addiction services, and addressing root causes—areas where defence perspectives remain vital.
Conclusion: Navigating the New Landscape with Vigilance
The Bail and Sentencing Reform Act marks a pivotal moment in Canadian criminal law, driven by demands for accountability amid rising concerns over repeat offending. For Vancouver criminal defence lawyers, it reinforces the need for adaptive, rights-focused advocacy—challenging evidence, crafting compelling release plans, and fighting for proportionate outcomes at sentencing.
While these reforms may deter some crime and protect communities, they also heighten the stakes for every accused person. The justice system must remain fair, not just tough. At our firm, we remain committed to defending the rights of those charged, ensuring that Bill C-14’s changes are applied justly and constitutionally.
If you or a loved one is facing criminal charges in Vancouver or B.C., reach out promptly for a consultation. Knowledge of these developments can be the first step toward the best possible defence.
This blog post is for educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Every case is unique—consult a qualified criminal defence lawyer for advice tailored to your situation.
In the age of social media, iPhones, and live streaming capabilities with the touch of a button, we’re able to get a firsthand look at how the police pursue suspects and conduct arrests, providing valuable insight and accountability. On the flipside, we also get an eyewitness account of the struggles police face from civilian interference. But when exactly does interference become obstruction, and under what circumstances is the charge pursued by Crown Counsel?
(a) resists or wilfully obstructs a public officer or peace officer in the execution of his duty or any person lawfully acting in aid of such an officer,
(b) omits, without reasonable excuse, to assist a public officer or peace officer in the execution of his duty in arresting a person or in preserving the peace, after having reasonable notice that he is required to do so, or
(c) resists or wilfully obstructs any person in the lawful execution of a process against lands or goods or in making a lawful distress or seizure,
is guilty of
(d) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years, or
(e) an offence punishable on summary conviction.
As you can see, obstructing a peace officer does not exclusively apply to situations where a civilian interferes with the police conducting an arrest – it also applies in circumstances where a person fails to assist a police officer when provided reasonable notice to do so. For example, if the police attend your residence to arrest a family member, and you tell the police that that person isn’t home (when in fact they are) this would be considered obstruction, as it prevents the officer from making the arrest.
Further, being a nuisance at the scene of an arrest by directly involving yourself or failing to afford the police an adequate amount of space to safely conduct the arrest, can also be chargeable under section 129. And while you can film an arrest taking place, be mindful that your involvement is best restricted to observing only.
We see the offence of obstruction tacked on to a variety of charges: assault, sexual assault, fraud, theft over/under $5,000, and impaired driving (operation of a conveyance) to name a few.
If you have been charged with a criminal offence in British Columbia or the Yukon Territory, it is imperative that you retain experienced criminal defence counsel without delay. Before speaking to police, providing a statement, or sharing the circumstances of your situation with anyone else, call Tarnow Law to discuss your case.
In one of our previous posts, we discussed biometric technology and the role it plays in Canadian law enforcement. It is, however, only one of the “predictive” tools utilized by the police in relation to criminal investigations.
Anew reportby theCitizen Labat the University of Toronto goes into alarming detail regarding growth of algorithmic policing methods, and how this technology compromises the privacy rights of Canadian citizens. The report is incredibly thorough and comprehensive, delving into how this controversial technique offends various sections of our Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Firstly, though, it is important that our readers understand what algorithmic policing is.
The overall success of any algorithm is the system’s ability to gather, store, and analyze data – with law enforcement’s methodology being no different. A “location focused” algorithmic approach seeks to determine (predict) which areas are more likely to see criminal activity. The algorithmic system in these pursuits analyzes historical police data to identify geographical locations where crimes are, in theory, more likely to be committed. If this sounds familiar to you, then you’ve likely heard of, or accessed, theVancouver Police Department’s GeoDashcrime map– an online tool where you can navigate a map of the City of Vancouver by crime occurrence. You can choose from a variety of offences on the dropdown list, including homicide, break and enter, mischief, theft, and “offences against a person” which likely includes a variety of crimes such as sexual assault, assault causing bodily harm, and uttering threats. By looking at this map, you get an idea of which neighborhoods in Vancouver are most vulnerable to crime – except that it’s a little bit more sophisticated than that, and goes far beyond simply dropping a pin on the map. The public can see where the crime took place, but not who is alleged to have committed it. The offender’s personal information is logged, in as much detail as possible, and becomes part of a larger system dedicated to predictive surveillance – i.e., it creates a profile of which individuals are more likely to commit a particular crime. This profile can be used to identify people who are “more likely to be involved in potential criminal activity, or to assess an identified person for their purported risk of engaging in criminal activity in the future”.
While this information is definitely concerning, there is another issue: we have very little insight into the extent that this technology is being used. We know that the methods by which police gather information have historically discriminated against minority groups and those living in marginalized communities. This seems to guarantee that the VPD’s use of algorithmic investigative techniques relies on data that is often obtained through biased methods. We know that black and indigenous individuals are disproportionately represented in the correctional system, which can only mean that they are disproportionately represented in respect of these algorithms.
Althoughnot everyone agreesthat systemic racism exists within the VPD, the calls to address, unravel and mitigate the harm to marginalized groups continue to amplify. The idea that information collected under the apprehension of bias will not only remain on record, but will be used to further future investigations, is an indicator that Canadian law enforcement’s road to redemption will likely be a bumpy one.
High on the list of things that have changed due to COVID-19 is our perception of what truly qualifies as an essential service – the transportation of goods by freight haulers, grocery stores and pharmacies, waste management and sanitation, and the list goes on. Service providers in these sectors are now being recognized for their significant contributions to our communities. In recent weeks, safety measures have been formulated and established, such as the installation of acrylic screens to act as a barrier between cashiers and customers, temporarily suspending the use of cash, and constantly monitoring supply stocks and evaluating the best methods to ensure that protective personal equipment is available to those working in healthcare.
But what about the justice system?
On March 18, 2020, court operations were abruptly suspended in BC. Mass adjournments of almost all trials, for those detained and those awaiting trial free in the community, has created uncertainty for accused persons and for their counsel. It has also highlighted systemic flaws that have been dismissed for far too long.
The Court of Appeal of BC was thefirst to announcethat, beginning May 4, 2020, appeals (all appeals, not just those deemed urgent) would be heard using the platform “Zoom”. A notice from the Chief Justice of British Columbia elaborated further and noted that the courts would use Zoom only until the government supplied a “permanent, enterprise videoconferencing solution”, lending likelihood to the idea that some of the interventions relied upon during the COVID-19 pandemic could become permanent adaptations.
COVID-19 emphasized the court systems’ vulnerability to interruption. At some point along the line, preference to proceed with business as usual was prioritized over adjusting to function optimally in a society that is increasingly reliant on digital mechanisms.
Currently, much of the paperwork involved in criminal proceedings is processed manually by court services staff (with the exception of some electronic documents) at the registry. Rules for fax filing vary by registry, which often creates confusion for counsel.
Here are some examples of what modernization could look like:
Change
Effect
Online court schedule for all levels of court
Counsel can manage their court schedule with more flexibility and can coordinate appearances in various jurisdictions with other counsel to maximize efficiency
Video-conferencing from correctional facilities to the office of counsel and to the court
Clients have more personal interactions with their counsel. Visits to the correctional centre can be limited (not replaced completely). If those in custody can appear exclusively by video, it reduces the number of inmates being transported via vehicle, saving time, money, and sheriffs’ resources
Enhanced online filing for court documents
Fewer issues with errors relating to form. Court services staff spend less time on data entry manual processing.
Digital court files
Court services staff can access all materials in one system and forward materials as needed to judicial staff. Storage of materials digitally saves an enormous amount of space. Archived files can be easily obtained rather than being stored “offsite”. Enhanced security for all files. Counsel could access court documents, such as a Record of Proceedings, online instead of having to make requests to court services staff
Digital disclosure transfer
All disclosure would be digitized, allowing law enforcement, crown counsel, court staff, and defence counsel to exchange documents without delay. Significant reduction in paper usage and courier/postage costs.
While other sectors prioritize adopting innovation, the court system has all-but ignored important opportunities for tech reform. Budgetary limitations are a frequent excuse. And of course, cost is an important factor – but it should not override value. The technology exists and has the potential to be extremely advantageous in the courtroom, and is often utilized more frequently in more remote jurisdictions such as Prince George, BC and throughout the Yukon Territory. Due to the logistical difficulties associated with residing in a remote location, video-conferencing is often used at trial for out-of-town witnesses.
Before the era of social distancing and COVID-19, there seemed little reason to forge ahead towards modernization with any sense of urgency – the old adage “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it” comes to mind – but now, we simply don’t have a choice.
It has been over one month since the Courts of British Columbia significantly curtailed operations in an attempt to combat COVID-19.
For many of those who work in the legal field, it was this development that made it all real. It quickly became clear that the novel coronavirus had the potential to spread quickly, and the confined space of a courtroom serves as ideal grounds for transmission.
Despite the coronavirus acting as a proverbial wrench in the gears of justice, the judicial system continues to putter along. This is largely due to increased utilization of technological tools like video/conferencing for court appearances and swearing of affidavits, and relaxing restrictions when it comes to fax/electronic filing of court documents.
Video conferencing isn’t new to the BC court system. As early as 2002, Judges across the province agreed that the technology improved procedural efficiency by facilitating witness testimony from distant locations and allowing interim appearances by video involving counsel from other jurisdictions. Judges also noted the value of video- conferencing for inmates at correctional centres – defeating the purpose of transferring multiple inmates from various correctional centres to various courthouses. The bottom line is that modernizing certain aspects of the criminal justice system makes sense financially and systemically – and events like COVID-19 demonstrate how it can have occupational benefits too.
At present, there is enormous value in modernizing certain judicial processes for two reasons – one, to limit face-to-face interactions between judicial staff, defence counsel and an Accused person, and two, to mitigate the consequences of what can only be described as colossal delay.
In reducing operations, the majority of criminal trials scheduled between March 18, 2020 and June 1, 2020, have been adjourned generally to dates in June and July, 2020. Cases that are deemed to be of an urgent nature will be able to proceed, although in a procedural sense, things will look different – for example, witnesses who would ordinarily appear before the Court to give evidence may be authorized to testify via video. For the most part, however, trials will proceed at a date that is likely much later than originally anticipated.
The situation is more grim for accused persons in custody awaiting their trial. Inmates are, of course, among the most vulnerable to contracting the novl coronavirus – a concern that was a topic of discussion before the courts closed – but didn’t really become part of the actual narrativeuntil it was too lateTrials for accused persons in custody have also been adjourned (for trials scheduled between March 23 and May 16, 2020). Sentencing hearings and bail hearings for accused persons will proceed. This could be positive – for some, it might result in their immediate release from the correctional system. For others, further incarceration for as little as an additional 90 days in custody will be devastating, a potential death sentence.
It is far too early to gauge how overwhelmed the court system will be at the return to business as usual – but when you consider that there was ahugebacklogbefore COVID-19 shut it all down, it seems only reasonable that extreme measures – such as implementing night/weekend court, and permanently authorizing certain modernization measures – will need to be taken to truly return to normal.
For those facing criminal charges in Vancouver, Surrey, or across B.C., understanding these reforms isn’t optional—it’s essential. In this post, I break down the key developments, their legal context, practical implications for defendants and practitioners, and what they mean for the future of Canadian criminal law.
