Bill C-313 amends the Criminal Code to make detention the default in a narrow set of cases unless the accused can satisfy the court that detention is not necessary. The change inserts a new pair of subsections into s.515 that shift the evidentiary burden onto the accused when they are charged with one of the listed offences and the alleged conduct occurred while they were under an order banning firearm possession.
The practical effect is twofold: the statutory “principle of restraint” is carved out for those circumstances, and judges and justices must treat detention as justified unless the accused proves otherwise on specific points (attendance, public safety, and public confidence). Prosecutors, police and victims will see a lower bar for keeping someone in custody at bail hearings; defence counsel will face a higher uphill evidentiary task in the stipulated situations.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill adds subsections 515(10.1) and (10.2) that create an exception to the release-first rule and require the accused to convince the court that detention is not necessary in narrowly defined cases. It also amends s.493.1 and several procedural provisions (ss.524, 525 and Form 8) to reference the new exception.
Who It Affects
Accused persons charged under the specific Criminal Code sections listed in s.515(10.2)(a) whose alleged offences occurred while subject to firearm-possession prohibitions under ss.109 or 110. It also affects judges, justices, prosecutors, defence counsel and front-line police conducting bail proceedings.
Why It Matters
The bill converts what is normally a prosecution obligation to justify detention into a de facto presumption of custody for a targeted group, shifting courtroom dynamics at bail hearings and likely increasing pre-trial detention in those cases. That changes how lawyers prepare for release hearings and how courts apply the principle of restraint.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill rewrites the Criminal Code’s bail framework in a narrowly defined set of cases. It starts by amending the ‘principle of restraint’ so that the default rule—release as early as possible on the least onerous conditions—does not apply where the bill’s new exception applies.
The core of the change sits in new subsection 515(10.1): in specified exceptional circumstances, detention is treated as justified unless the accused persuades the justice otherwise.
Those exceptional circumstances are set out in 515(10.2). They require (1) that the accused be charged under one of the enumerated Criminal Code sections, and (2) that the alleged offence occurred while the accused was subject to an order under s.109 or an order under s.110 prohibiting firearm possession.
The bill does not itself explain the policy rationale or list collateral evidence; it confines the special treatment to the combination of listed offences and an existing firearm prohibition order.When the exception applies, the accused must satisfy the justice on three fronts: that detention is unnecessary to secure their attendance, that there is only a minimal likelihood detention is needed for public protection (including victims, witnesses and youth), and that there is only a minimal likelihood detention is needed to maintain confidence in the administration of justice. Those are the legal points the defence must establish “to the satisfaction of the justice.”The bill also makes modest but important procedural edits: it updates s.524(4) and s.525(5) so that show-cause and release decisions explicitly reference the new subsection (10.1), and it revises Form 8 to cite the new provisions.
Those changes ensure courts and police forms reflect the shifted burden and that existing processes (summons cancellation, hearings and release orders) will invoke the new standard when the statutory criteria are met.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill inserts new subsections 515(10.1) and 515(10.2) establishing that, in specified cases, detention is justified unless the accused proves otherwise to the court.
Subsection 515(10.2) limits the exception to accused charged under the explicitly enumerated sections (85, 87, 95, 96, 98, 98.1, 99, 100, 102, 103, 108, 244, 244.1, 244.2 or paragraph 344(1)(a)) and where the offence is alleged to have occurred while the accused was subject to an order under s.109 or an order under s.110 prohibiting firearm possession.
The accused must establish three things 'to the satisfaction of the justice': (a) detention isn't needed to ensure attendance; (b) there is only a minimal likelihood detention is needed for public protection; and (c) there is only a minimal likelihood detention is needed to maintain public confidence in the justice system.
The bill explicitly carves out the Criminal Code’s 'principle of restraint' (s.493.1) by stating that it does not apply where s.515(10.2) circumstances exist.
Procedural sections—s.524(4), s.525(5) and Form 8—are amended to reference the new subsection so show‑cause hearings, release orders and police/court forms apply the revised test.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Carves out the general release-first principle in specified cases
This provision revises the 'principle of restraint' so a court or peace officer must still normally prioritize early release, but not when the circumstances in new s.515(10.2) obtain. Practically, that means judges and justices cannot rely on the release-as-default policy at bail stages for cases captured by the exception—courts must treat the statutory presumption of detention as operative unless the accused rebuts it.
Creates the reverse-onus exception and defines its scope
This is the bill’s substantive core. Subsection (10.1) makes detention 'justified' by default in the listed circumstances, and sets the three legal matters the accused must prove to avoid custody. Subsection (10.2) narrowly defines when the rule applies by listing specific Criminal Code provisions and requiring that the alleged offence occurred while the accused was under a s.109 or s.110 firearm-possession prohibition. The mechanics shift the evidentiary burden onto the defence in those fact patterns.
Updates the show-cause procedure to include the new test
The amendment requires that if a summons, appearance notice, undertaking or release order is cancelled, the judge or justice must detain the accused unless the accused shows cause why detention is not justified under either s.515(10) or the new s.515(10.1). It compels courts to apply the new standard at the point where release documents are withdrawn, which may shorten or limit opportunities for interim release in captured cases.
Tethers release-orders to the new detention test
This change requires judges to make a release order only if they are not satisfied that detention is justified under s.515(10) or (10.1). It reinforces that the new reverse-onus standard is integrated into the existing bail hearing framework and will govern whether a release order is appropriate in the enumerated situations.
Brings court and police forms into line with the new law
The bill updates Form 8 references so that charging documents and court paperwork list s.515(10.1) alongside existing citations. This is administrative but important: forms that officers and courts use will explicitly notify practitioners and accused persons that the shifted test applies, reducing ambiguity at first contact.
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
- Prosecutors and police — they gain a statutory presumption favoring detention in a defined set of cases, which makes it easier to keep accused persons in custody during prosecution.
- Victims and witnesses in affected cases — because the default becomes detention, victims and witnesses may face reduced risk of alleged perpetrators being released pending trial.
- Courts and policymakers focused on public confidence — the law gives judges a clearer statutory basis to deny release when the public safety rationale and confidence arguments are present.
Who Bears the Cost
- Accused persons charged under the listed sections who were subject to firearm prohibition orders — they bear a higher evidentiary burden to secure pre-trial liberty.
- Defence counsel and legal aid systems — defence lawyers will need to marshal more evidence at first appearance and bail hearings, increasing time and resource pressures on publicly funded defence services.
- Lower‑resourced courts and remand facilities — the shift toward detention in these cases can increase remand populations and create heavier caseloads for bail courts, with corresponding administrative and budgetary impacts.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The bill pits an intensified public-safety default—keeping certain accused in custody—against the criminal-law principles of individual liberty and the presumption of innocence: it attempts to reduce risks to victims and public confidence by shifting the burden onto the accused, but in doing so it requires courts to reconcile that burden with foundational bail protections and practical limits on how quickly and thoroughly a defence can marshal evidence.
The bill sets a statutory presumption of detention in narrowly defined circumstances, but it leaves several operational and legal questions open. The statutory phrase 'to the satisfaction of the justice' imports an evidentiary and evaluative standard that the bill does not further define: courts will need to determine what materials (affidavits, viva voce evidence, records of the firearm prohibition order) suffice for an accused to meet the burden at an initial hearing.
The bill also uses the term 'minimal likelihood' as the defence’s required showing on public safety and public confidence; that wording departs from more common bail formulations and will require judicial interpretation to translate into an actuarial or evidentiary test.
There are practical frictions, too. Establishing that an offence was committed while a person was 'subject to' a s.109 or s.110 order will often depend on administrative proof of the order’s existence and effective service—matters that may complicate early hearings.
The administrative edits (Form 8 and related sections) reduce some uncertainty, but they do not address resourcing for defence evidence-gathering or for courts to hear more contested bail proceedings. Finally, although the exception is numerically narrow, a small increase in custody rates can have outsized impacts on remand capacity and on the time-to-trial for detained accused.
There's more to this law than the bill.
Codify Laws traces every connection across the legislative lifecycle.