Skip to main content
About
Strategic Priorities
Events
News

Our Reaction to the Bail and Sentencing Reform Act

On October 23, 2025, Bill C-14 (45th Parliament, 1st Session) – the Bail and Sentencing Reform Act – was introduced, marking a pivotal step toward building safer communities across Ontario. This landmark legislation reflects the progress achieved through persistent advocacy and addresses several of the key concerns raised by our membership.
PAO’s Analysis of Bill C-14 (45th Parliament, 1st Session) - the Bail and Sentencing Reform Act

Points of Alignment

  1. The Act makes bail stricter and harder to obtain in cases of violent and repeat offending by creating new reverse-onus offences. The PAO’s formal position on bail also called for expanding reverse-onus offences to ensure that, in these limited scenarios, the starting point for violent, repeat offenders is detention, and the onus remains on them to prove otherwise.
  2. Of particular interest to law enforcement are the proposed changes directing courts to consider imposing consecutive sentences for offenders with prior convictions for violent crimes, as well as the new provision recognizing assaults against first responders as an aggravating factor in sentencing. Together, these measures reinforce the principle that accountability must rise in response to repeated or targeted violence, and they help ensure our justice system responds appropriately to serious harms in our communities.
  3. We are very happy to see the new provision recognizing assaults against first responders as an aggravating factor in sentencing – for far too long, people assault police in the course of their duties and face minimal consequences in court for it.
  4. We called on the government to expand the scope of reverse onuses so that previous convictions within the last 10 years (not 5) are captured – this was part of the Act, and we strongly support it.
  5. We support restricting the availability of conditional sentence orders for sexual offenders. 
  6. We support the proposed amendments clarifying what constitutes an ‘indictable offence’ for the purposes of bail, and the requirement for more detailed information regarding surety declarations – this will enhance release plan accountability. 
  7. We support the additional tertiary ground for detention as proposed—we called for it as well in circumstances where an accused has a history of violating court orders.
  8. We welcome the introduction of proposed amendments to the YCJA, aimed at strengthening Canada’s bail and sentencing framework. These will emphasize the foundational sentencing principles of denunciation and deterrence, better support victims of crime, and help to restore public confidence in a well-functioning justice system. 

Where further work can be done:

  1. While we support clarification that the ladder principle does not apply to reverse onus offences, the Act amends the Criminal Code to direct police and courts on how to apply the principle of least restraint – we want to ensure there is a fully codified exemption from the ladder principle for reverse-onus offences – this would remove judicial discretion for violent and repeat offences, that has historically lead to a catch-and-release scenario and put our communities at risk
  2. In addition to more detailed surety declaration information being sought, we would like to see a cash deposit requirement – there needs to be greater accountability for those released on bail, to ensure release plans function as they’re supposed to, and the criminal justice system has sufficient mechanisms for enforcement
  3. Hand in hand with this, we want to see further steps taken to ensure an accused’s release plan is “reliable and credible.” For violent and repeat offenders, this threshold should be higher
  4. We would like to see further clarity on the burden of proof to be applied in reverse onus bail hearings, along with very specific direction to jurists on consistent application of reverse onus provisions – this will require further standardized training we’d like to see across the country. Having a patchwork framework for bail has done both our communities and our first responders a disservice.

The Police Association of Ontario is a member of the Canadian Police Association. Please see here for their official statement on the introduction of Bill C-14 / Déclaration de l'ACP sur le dépot de loi C-14.

PAO's Official Statement

“The Police Association of Ontario (PAO) strongly supports meaningful bail reform that balances the rights of individuals with the critical need to keep our members and the public safe. The Bail and Sentencing Reform Act is a welcome and overdue step in the right direction. We urge all stakeholders to continue working together to enhance community safety. Our members witness firsthand the consequences of violent and repeat offenders. A strong and effective Criminal Code is vital—not only to protect the communities we serve, but also to ensure our members have the support they need to keep our province safe.”

Mark Baxter, President, Police Association of Ontario (PAO)
The PAO's Original Recommendations for Federal Bail Reform

On September 4, 2025, the Police Association of Ontario (PAO), which represents over 32,000 police personnel across the province, called on the federal government to swiftly reform Canada’s bail system to better protect communities from violent and repeat offenders. Below are our original seven recommendations.

Backed by:
Recommendations

1. Expand the list of reverse onus offences under section 515(6) to include those that are violent or serious in nature, such as car theft, home invasions, human trafficking, and drug smuggling.

Rationale: Bill C-48 expanded the list of reverse onus provisions, which place an onus on an accused to show cause why they should be released from custody. However, violent and repeat offenders are still being released on bail far too frequently. This suggests that the prospect of being detained is not strong enough to act as a deterrent. By further expanding the list of reverse onus offences in the Criminal Code and compelling an accused to show cause why they should be released from custody, our justice system is empowered to adopt a firmer approach when considering the release of these types of offenders based on the nature and context of their offence(s). For instance, many of the reverse onus provisions apply to offences committed with firearms, but not other types of weapons, leaving out serious violent offences like carjacking with a knife.

2. Expand the reverse onus provisions to apply to those charged with violent offences while on probation or parole

Rationale: Section 515(6) establishes a reverse onus when a person already on bail for an indictable offence is charged with a fresh indictable offence, but this does not extend to offenders who are charged with a fresh indictable offence while on probation or parole. This is incongruent. The logic of imposing a reverse onus applies with greater force to a person on probation and parole than it does to a person on bail, who still enjoys a presumption of innocence in respect of their index offence. Shifting the onus for those on probation and parole would deter breaches and ensure courts scrutinize release more rigorously for convicted offenders who are accused of committing violent offences while on supervision.

3. Introduce clarity in the legislation on the burden of proof to be applied in reverse onus bail hearings, along with direction to jurists on consistent application of reverse onus provisions.

Rationale: As the list of reverse onus offences continues to expand, covering myriad types of offences of varying severity, clarity is needed on burden of proof to ensure uniform direction to jurists and more consistent application in bail hearings.

4. Increase the timeframe for previous convictions contemplated in section 515(6)(b.2) from five years to ten years and account for time spent in custody in the calculation.

Rationale: Lengthening the timeframe under this provision allows courts to factor in repeat and/or similar convictions when considering detention orders, focusing on those offences for which violence was allegedly used, threatened or attempted against a person, with the use of a weapon. This accords with studies that have shown that the three-year incidence of any reconviction was highest for those with 10 or more prior convictions in the 10 years prior to the period under study (79%). In addition, the current provision relies on the time between a conviction and a new offence, not accounting for time spent in custody following the conviction, which leads to unintended results. An accused who has spent five years in prison for a violent weapons offence can commit a fresh violent weapons offence the day after their release, and they would not be subject to this reverse onus provision, because five years will have passed since their conviction. An amended provision should omit time spent in custody from the calculation.

5. Codify an exemption for reverse onus offences from the “ladder principle” of least onerous form of release (section 515(1) to (3)), as enumerated in section 515(2)(2.01), of the Criminal Code.

Rationale: The PAO is aware of the Supreme Court of Canada’s (SCC) decision in R. v. Antic, where it clarified that the bail framework described in the Criminal Code and guaranteed by the Charter was being inconsistently applied in bail courts across the country. While the Court offered guidance on steps judges and justices of the peace should take when administering the bail system – including that bail should not be denied without just cause and any release conditions imposed be only the minimum necessary – it has become extremely difficult to convince judges or justices of the peace that just cause exists to commit a person to custody. We acknowledge that Bill C-75 codified the SCC’s decision in Antic, clarifying the Court’s guidance as it related to release conditions, sureties, and cash. However, common law jurisprudence has supported the position that the ladder or “least onerous” principle set out in Antic is not applicable in reverse onus situations. We believe this should be explicitly codified. Codifying that the ladder principle does not apply in reverse onus situations would promote clarity and consistency in bail courts. It would also enable courts to more easily detain repeat and violent offenders, while preserving an accused’s Charter rights.

6. Require a (cash) deposit for repeat and violent offenders under section 515(2)(e).

Rationale: Too often, family members or loved ones called upon to act as sureties as part of an accused person’s release plan, are responsible for a “promise to pay” if the accused breaches their bail conditions. Unfortunately, this situation is all too common, and the notion of payment has been insufficient to force compliance in this regard. By requiring a cash deposit for repeat and violent offenders, it allows Crown prosecutors to seek, and courts to impose, a more onerous and proportionate condition of release for those types of offenders.

7. Create an additional tertiary ground for consideration under section 515(10)(c) for when an accused has a history of violating court orders.

Rationale: The tertiary ground permits detention of an accused where it is necessary to maintain confidence in the administration of justice. In our view, bail being granted to those who have a history of disrespecting court orders significantly erodes public confidence. Requiring courts to explicitly consider an accused’s charges and convictions for violating court orders (such as bail conditions, peace bonds, and prohibition orders) under the tertiary ground would highlight the significance of this concern. It would create an additional basis to detain where an accused has a demonstrated propensity to breach, without having to meet the “substantial likelihood” to re-offend threshold under the secondary ground. This is consistent with public expectations and is fully Charter-compliant.

Footnotes