Bill C-296 (Respecting Families of Murdered and Brutalized Persons Act) amends section 745 of the Criminal Code to give judges the statutory power, at sentencing, to increase the minimum parole ineligibility period for certain combined offences from the default 25 years to any term up to 40 years. The expansion applies when an offender is convicted, with respect to the same victim and same event or series of events, of specified abduction or sexual offences (Criminal Code sections listed in the bill) and murder.
The bill also inserts a procedural step for jury trials: before discharge the judge must ask the jury whether it wishes to recommend a number of years (between 25 and 40) for parole ineligibility; any recommendation is non-binding but must be considered by the sentencing judge. The change shifts the landscape for high-harm cases by formalizing longer parole bars, adding a jury input mechanism, and delegating final substitution discretion to the sentencing judge under set criteria.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill adds a new paragraph (a.1) to section 745 and creates sections 745.22 and 745.52, allowing judges to substitute the default 25-year parole ineligibility with a longer term up to 40 years where an offender committed specified abduction/sexual offences and murder against the same victim in the same event(s). A jury may be asked to recommend a length before it is discharged; the judge may consider that recommendation but retains final authority.
Who It Affects
The rule targets individuals convicted of combinations of abduction/sexual offences (Criminal Code ss. 279–283; ss. 151–153.1, 271–273) together with murder involving the same victim. Directly affected professionals include defence counsel, Crown prosecutors, sentencing judges, trial judges (who must pose the jury question), correctional administrators, and parole authorities planning timelines.
Why It Matters
This bill formalizes a mechanism to extend parole ineligibility well beyond the current 25-year baseline in the most serious mixed sexual/abduction-and-murder cases, introduces juror input into sentencing calculations, and consolidates judicial discretion to substitute longer parole bars—changes that will alter sentencing outcomes, litigation strategy, and correctional planning in applicable cases.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
Bill C-296 inserts a targeted, mandatory sentencing step into the Criminal Code for a narrow class of very serious offences: when a court convicts an accused of both murder and accompanying abduction or sexual offences against the same victim arising from the same event or connected events. The sentence remains life imprisonment, but the statute changes how long the offender must wait before becoming eligible for parole.
Instead of the statutory 25-year waiting period, the sentencing judge can set a longer minimum between 25 and 40 years.
The bill creates a two-part procedural architecture for that decision. First, if the accused was tried by jury, the presiding judge must ask the jury, before discharge, whether it wishes to recommend a specific number of years (more than 25 and not more than 40) that the offender should serve before parole eligibility; the jury is told the recommendation is optional and will be considered at sentencing.
Second, at the sentencing hearing the judge who presided (or another judge of the same court if necessary) must consider three factors— the offender's character, the nature of the offences, and surrounding circumstances—alongside any jury recommendation, and may by order substitute for the 25-year period a longer fixed number of years up to 40.The statutory text identifies the applicable offences by Criminal Code cross‑references rather than by descriptive labels: sections listed include offences in ss. 279–283 and ss. 151–153.1, 271–273 together with murder. The bill keeps the life sentence intact and modifies only parole ineligibility timing; it does not change grounds for conviction, parole board authority to assess risk at the end of the ineligibility period, or the mechanics of parole hearings.
The judge’s power to substitute is discretionary but bounded (no more than 40 years) and is to be exercised at the sentencing stage using the statutory considerations and any jury input.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The Act is titled the Respecting Families of Murdered and Brutalized Persons Act and amends section 745 of the Criminal Code.
It applies when an offender is convicted, in respect of the same victim and the same event or series of events, of specified abduction/sexual offences (including Criminal Code ss. 279–283; ss. 151–153.1, 271–273) and murder.
For qualifying convictions the sentencing judge may replace the default parole ineligibility period of 25 years with any longer fixed term of more than 25 but not more than 40 years under new section 745.52.
When a jury returns guilty verdicts in such cases, the presiding judge must ask the jury, before discharge, if it wishes to recommend a parole-ineligibility period between 25 and 40 years; that recommendation is advisory only.
The sentencing judge must consider the offender’s character, the nature of the offences and surrounding circumstances, and any jury recommendation when deciding whether to order a substituted parole ineligibility term.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title
Gives the bill the short title Respecting Families of Murdered and Brutalized Persons Act. This is a formal label with no substantive effect on interpretation, but it signals legislative intent and the policy focus on severe violent crimes involving sexual or abduction elements plus murder.
Creates targeted parole-ineligibility trigger (paragraph a.1)
Adds a new paragraph (a.1) to s.745 that identifies the factual trigger for the enhanced parole bar: convictions for specified abduction/sexual offences together with murder against the same victim arising from the same event or series of events. The provision stipulates the sentencing result—life imprisonment with parole ineligibility of at least 25 years unless the judge orders a longer period up to 40 under the new substitution mechanism. Practically, this creates a statutory pathway for longer parole bars only in those combined-offence scenarios, rather than expanding longer ineligibility to murder generally.
Mandatory jury question and advisory recommendation
Adds s.745.22 requiring the trial judge, before discharging a jury that convicted on the listed offences plus murder, to ask whether the jury wishes to make a recommendation on the number of years (25–40) before parole eligibility. The question must be put orally and framed to emphasize the recommendation is optional and advisory. The practical effect is to create a formal channel for juror views to reach the sentencing judge, which will influence sentencing submissions but carries no binding effect.
Judicial substitution power and sentencing criteria
Adds s.745.52 giving the sentencing judge (or another judge of the same court) explicit statutory authority to substitute a longer parole-ineligibility period—more than 25 but not exceeding 40 years—when imposing the life sentence in qualifying cases. The judge must have regard to the offender’s character, the nature of the offences and surrounding circumstances, and may consider any jury recommendation. This provision centralizes the substitution decision at sentencing and outlines the three statutory factors the judge must weigh.
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
- Families of victims: The bill provides a formal mechanism to extend the time before parole eligibility in the most serious cases, offering a statutory pathway to longer periods of incapacitation that families and victims’ advocates have sought.
- Crown prosecutors: Prosecutors gain a clear statutory option to seek extended parole ineligibility at sentencing in qualifying cases and can present jury recommendations as persuasive evidence during sentencing submissions.
- Sentencing judges: Judges receive an express statutory framework and explicit factors to guide substitution decisions, reducing ambiguity about whether and how they can order longer parole bars in these fact patterns.
- Public-safety proponents: Those prioritizing incapacitation obtain a legislative tool to keep high‑risk offenders off the parole eligibility rolls for longer periods in clearly defined, high-harm scenarios.
Who Bears the Cost
- Accused persons and defence counsel: Defendants face a new statutory exposure to parole ineligibility of up to 40 years in applicable cases; defence lawyers must litigate jury questioning strategy and advance mitigation tailored to the new substitution factors.
- Correctional system and taxpayers: Longer parole ineligibility can increase incarceration durations before parole review, raising costs for corrections and long-term institutional planning.
- Trial judges and court administrators: Judges must add a mandatory jury question into jury trials, and courts must ensure consistent phrasing and recordation; failures could generate procedural appeals.
- Parole Board and release planners: Parole authorities will have longer intervals before they may consider release, complicating long‑term risk management and reintegration planning.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is a clash between two legitimate aims: the political and social demand to keep the most dangerous offenders off the parole schedule for longer periods, versus the principles of individualized sentencing, rehabilitation, and consistent judicial decision‑making—where a statutory tool that lengthens parole bars can protect public safety but also produce harsher, potentially uneven outcomes and administrative burdens without clear rules to limit disparity.
The bill creates concrete policy gains for victims’ families and prosecutors, but it also raises several practical and doctrinal questions. First, the jury recommendation device is advisory only; the statute does not define how heavily a judge should weigh a juror recommendation relative to other sentencing factors, leaving room for uneven applications across courts.
Second, the phrase "same event or series of events" is fact-sensitive and may prompt litigation over whether linked offences meet the statutory connection requirement, particularly where conduct spans time or multiple acts are alleged.
Operationally, the requirement to ask juries introduces procedural risk: inconsistent wording, inadequate juror comprehension of the recommendation’s legal effect, or the timing of the question could generate grounds for appeal. The statute also sidesteps questions about retroactivity and does not address whether ongoing sentences or past convictions are affected.
Finally, extending parole ineligibility shifts more weight to incapacitation at the expense of rehabilitative and restorative objectives; it will increase correctional system costs and raise fairness concerns if applied unevenly across cases or if it disproportionately affects groups already overrepresented in custody.
There's more to this law than the bill.
Codify Laws traces every connection across the legislative lifecycle.