Bill C-295 amends the Criminal Code to impose a criminal duty on owners and officers of long‑term care facilities to ensure residents receive the necessaries of life, elevating certain failures to the level of an offence when they endanger life or cause (or are likely to cause) permanent injury. It defines “long‑term care facility” and “officer,” and it expands the statute’s remedial toolbox by allowing courts to issue prohibition orders that bar convicted owners or officers from employment or volunteer roles that place them in charge of vulnerable adults.
The Act also requires courts to consider an organization’s failure to perform a legal duty to vulnerable adults as an aggravating factor at sentencing and permits variation of prohibition orders. Practically, the bill creates direct criminal exposure for facility-level decision‑makers, adds a non‑custodial enforcement lever (the prohibition order), and increases the interplay between federal criminal enforcement and provincial health‑and‑safety and licensing regimes.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill inserts a new duty into s.215: owners and officers of long‑term care facilities must ensure residents are provided the necessaries of life; failing that, where the failure endangers life or causes (or is likely to cause) permanent injury, the enhanced offence provision applies. It also creates s.215.1, which authorizes courts to impose prohibition orders limiting employment or volunteer roles, and adds an aggravating sentencing factor referencing organizational failures to vulnerable adults.
Who It Affects
Long‑term care facilities that house three or more unrelated adults who cannot provide their own necessaries, their owners and named officers (chair, president, general manager, etc.), criminal prosecutors, defense counsel, insurers, and provincial regulators responsible for licensing and oversight of care homes.
Why It Matters
The bill shifts certain accountability from regulatory or civil remedies into the criminal realm for organizational leaders, gives sentencing judges a new aggravating factor to increase penalties, and creates a tool (prohibition orders) that can remove individuals from positions of trust even if imprisonment is not imposed—forcing operators to reassess governance, staffing, compliance and insurance arrangements.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
Bill C‑295 adds two new definitions to the Criminal Code: a “long‑term care facility” is a residential place whose primary purpose is long‑term accommodation, meals, assistance and care for three or more adults who are unrelated to facility owners and who cannot provide the necessaries of life due to age, illness, mental disorder, disability or frailty. “Officer” names specific corporate functions (chair, president, vice‑president, treasurer, general manager, etc.) and any person performing comparable duties or designated as an officer.
The bill amends section 215 to make it a legal duty for owners and officers of those facilities to ensure residents receive the necessaries of life. It also adjusts the culpability threshold in the subsection addressing serious outcomes so that, for duties owed by owners or officers under the new paragraph, the failure must either endanger the resident’s life or cause (or be likely to cause) permanent injury for the enhanced offence element to apply.
That change narrows the set of failures that draw the most serious criminal exposure, linking prosecution to severe harm or risk thereof.Separately, the bill creates a new provision (s.215.1) authorizing courts, on conviction or on conditional discharge under s.730 for an offence tied to the amended 215(2)(b), to consider and possibly make prohibition orders. Those orders can bar the offender from seeking, obtaining or continuing employment or volunteer roles that involve being in charge of, or in a position of trust with, vulnerable adults.
The court must take any provincial penalties or measures into account, may set the order’s duration (including running it concurrent with a custodial sentence), and can later vary the order on application if circumstances change. Breaching a prohibition order is itself a criminal offence—indictable up to four years or punishable on summary conviction.Finally, the bill adds a new factor for sentencing judges to consider: whether an organization was under a legal duty to vulnerable adults and failed to perform it.
The Act comes into force 30 days after royal assent. Together, these changes create criminal exposure for facility decision‑makers, a judicial tool to remove them from positions of trust, and a statutory cue to judges to treat organizational failures as aggravating when fashioning sentences.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill defines a long‑term care facility as one whose primary purpose is long‑term accommodation, meals and care for three or more adults who are unrelated to the owners and cannot provide necessaries due to age, illness, mental disorder, disability or frailty.
It adds a specific duty (new paragraph 215(1)(b.1)) requiring owners and officers of such facilities to ensure residents are provided the necessaries of life; failure to perform that duty triggers the enhanced culpability standard in s.215(2)(b).
When the failure to perform that duty endangers life or causes (or is likely to cause) permanent injury, the offender can be prosecuted under the Criminal Code’s provisions tied to s.215(2)(b).
On conviction (or a conditional discharge under s.730), the sentencing court may issue a prohibition order barring the offender from employment or volunteer roles involving authority over vulnerable adults; breaching that order is an indictable offence punishable by up to four years’ imprisonment.
The bill requires courts to consider any provincial penalties intended to protect vulnerable adults and adds organisational failure to perform a legal duty to the list of aggravating factors judges must consider at sentencing (new 718.21(a.1)).
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
New definitions: long‑term care facility and officer
This provision inserts two targeted definitions into the Criminal Code. ‘Long‑term care facility’ is tethered to both purpose (accommodation, meals, assistance and care) and population (three or more unrelated adults who cannot provide necessaries). The ‘officer’ definition lists corporate roles by name and captures functional equivalents and designated officers, which widens the net to include senior managers who perform those duties even if their title differs. Practically, these definitions determine who can carry a criminal duty and therefore are the primary gating criteria for the rest of the bill.
Duty added to s.215 and higher harm threshold
The bill inserts paragraph 215(1)(b.1) creating an explicit legal duty on owners and officers to ensure residents receive necessaries of life. It then replaces paragraph 215(2)(b) to specify that, for duties under paragraph (b.1) or existing paragraph (c), the failure must either endanger life or cause (or likely cause) permanent injury to meet the enhanced criminal threshold. This is consequential because it frames criminal liability around severe outcomes rather than minor or temporary lapses, but it still places affirmative obligations on organizational leaders to prevent those outcomes.
New s.215.1 — court power to impose prohibition orders
This new section requires sentencing courts to consider and permits them to make prohibition orders against convicted owners or officers (or those discharged on conditions under s.730) for offences tied to the amended s.215(2)(b). The order can bar employment or volunteer activities that place the person in charge of or in a position of trust toward vulnerable adults. The court must account for provincial sanctions, can set the duration (including overlap with imprisonment), may later vary the order, and creates a separate offence for non‑compliance. The provision operationalizes a non‑custodial mechanism to protect vulnerable adults by removing access to positions of authority.
Sentencing: organizational failure as an aggravating factor
This amendment adds a new item to the list of factors judges must consider at sentencing: whether the organization was under a legal duty to vulnerable adults and failed to perform it. That change signals to courts that systemic or corporate failures tied to care obligations should weigh toward harsher sentences, which will likely influence plea discussions, corporate governance risk assessments, and insurance exposures.
Coming into force
The Act comes into force 30 days after royal assent. That short implementation window means facilities and their governance teams should begin reviewing policies, contract templates, oversight structures and staffing practices promptly to identify and mitigate gaps that could attract criminal liability once the law is active.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on this topic across all five countries.
Explore this topic in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Residents of long‑term care facilities — gain a clearer federal criminal backstop designed to deter failures to provide necessaries and to remove individuals found criminally responsible from positions of trust.
- Family members and advocates — receive an additional enforcement avenue (criminal prosecution and prohibition orders) when regulatory remedies prove insufficient or slow.
- Prosecutors and courts — gain statutory clarity and an explicit judicial remedy (prohibition orders) tailored to protect vulnerable adults without relying solely on incarceration.
Who Bears the Cost
- Owners and officers of long‑term care facilities — face new direct criminal duties, potential prosecution, prohibition orders limiting future roles, reputational harm and increased compliance costs.
- Insurers and employers — may face higher premiums, expanded indemnity disputes and the practical burden of vetting, monitoring and enforcing new rules to prevent prohibited persons from assuming care roles.
- Provincial regulators and licensing bodies — will absorb coordination and potential tension as criminal enforcement and prohibition orders interact with existing administrative sanctions, licensing suspensions and oversight responsibilities.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The bill pits two legitimate goals against each other: protecting vulnerable adults by creating strong criminal and judicial tools to remove and punish those responsible for severe neglect, versus the risk of criminalizing systemic deficiencies (for example, underfunding or industry‑wide staffing shortages) and imposing liability on individuals whose decisions were constrained by broader structural problems. That trade‑off forces a choice between deterrence and accountability on one hand and recognizing the limits of individual culpability within under‑resourced care systems on the other.
The bill deliberately overlays criminal liability on top of existing provincial regulatory frameworks that govern long‑term care, creating practical and legal friction. Provinces regulate staffing levels, licensing, inspections and civil remedies; the federal criminal regime does not replicate those systems but can now punish severe failures.
That raises questions about when a matter should be treated as a regulatory defect versus a prosecutable crime: prosecutors will need to calibrate charges to the new ‘endangers life or causes permanent injury’ standard and decide when systemic underfunding or staffing shortages mitigate or aggravate culpability.
Operationally, the duty imposed on ‘owners and officers’ is broad and the officer definition is functionally capacious. Determining which individuals exercised sufficient control to attract criminal liability will require careful factual inquiries into governance, delegated authority, and corporate decision‑making.
Courts will also confront evidentiary challenges proving the causal link between administrative or organizational failures and the statutory harm threshold. Finally, prohibition orders create enforcement burdens: monitoring compliance, deciding when variation is appropriate, and resolving conflicts where provincial employers need to comply with both criminal orders and labour or employment law protections.
There's more to this law than the bill.
Codify Laws traces every connection across the legislative lifecycle.