Bill C-235 amends the Criminal Code to add a new category of parole ineligibility for offenders who are convicted — in respect of the same victim and the same event or series of events — of specified sexual and abduction offences together with murder. Where those elements are met the bill makes the life sentence ineligible for parole for at least 25 years and allows a sentencing judge to extend that bar to as much as 40 years.
The bill also requires the trial judge to ask a guilty jury, before discharge, whether the jury wishes to recommend a parole‑ineligibility period greater than 25 but not more than 40 years; the recommendation is non‑binding but must be considered by the sentencing judge. The measure concentrates discretionary authority in sentencing judges while adding a formal, optional role for juries — a procedural change with potential constitutional, evidentiary and administrative consequences for trials and appeals.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill inserts paragraph 745(a.1) into the Criminal Code to create a parole‑ineligibility rule that applies when an accused is convicted of specific sexual/abduction offences and murder of the same victim; the minimum bar is 25 years and a judge may, at sentencing, substitute any period greater than 25 but not exceeding 40 years. It also adds a mandatory jury question (s.745.22) allowing jurors to recommend a number of years between 25 and 40, which the judge must consider.
Who It Affects
This targets accused persons convicted of both an abduction/forcible confinement and a sexual offence together with murder; it affects prosecutors, defence counsel, sentencing judges, juries in those trials, and the Parole Board of Canada. Correctional administrators will also face longer minimum custody periods for a subset of murder convictions.
Why It Matters
The bill hardens parole outcomes for a class of particularly violent combined offences and formalizes a jury’s advisory role in sentencing decisions, shifting norms around sentencing participation and potentially increasing constitutional and appellate scrutiny of parole bars and jury procedures.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
C-235 creates a statutory pathway for longer parole ineligibility when three elements coincide: (1) a conviction for a listed sexual offence, (2) a conviction for an abduction/related offence, and (3) a conviction for murder — all in relation to the same victim and the same event or series of events. Under existing law murder already carries life imprisonment; this bill makes parole ineligibility automatic for at least 25 years in that factual constellation and gives the sentencing judge express power to increase the bar up to 40 years.
The bill inserts two practical procedures into the trial-sentencing sequence. First, after a jury returns guilty verdicts for the covered offences, the presiding judge must ask jurors whether they wish to recommend a specific number of years (greater than 25 but not more than 40) that the offender should serve before being eligible for parole.
That recommendation is optional for jurors and explicitly non‑binding. Second, at sentencing the judge must consider the jury recommendation, along with the character of the accused, the nature of the offences and the circumstances surrounding them, when deciding whether to substitute a parole‑ineligibility period longer than the statutory 25 years.The bill vests the ultimate decision in the sentencing judge rather than making any extended bar automatic beyond 25 years.
It also clarifies which judges may impose the substituted period (the trial judge or, if unavailable, any judge of the same court). These mechanics create new procedural steps at the end of jury trials and expand judicial discretion on parole bars within a fixed 25–40 year range.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill adds paragraph 745(a.1): when an accused is convicted of specified sexual offences and specified abduction offences together with murder of the same victim in the same event or series of events, parole eligibility is barred for at least 25 years.
The sentencing judge may order a parole‑ineligibility period of more than 25 years but not more than 40 years, after considering the accused’s character, the nature of the offences and circumstances of commission.
Section 745.22 requires the presiding judge to ask a guilty jury, before discharge, whether they wish to recommend a parole‑ineligibility period between 25 and 40 years; the recommendation is optional and advisory.
If the trial judge cannot sentence, any other judge of the same court may impose the substituted parole‑ineligibility period up to 40 years.
The Act’s short title is the Respecting Families of Murdered and Brutalized Persons Act; the changes apply by statutory amendment to section 745 and by adding sections 745.22 and 745.52 to the Criminal Code.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title
Names the enactment the Respecting Families of Murdered and Brutalized Persons Act. The title signals the policy focus but has no operative legal effect; practitioners should note the title when searching legislative records and notices.
New triggering condition for extended parole ineligibility
This provision adds a narrowly defined trigger: simultaneous convictions for specified sexual‑offence provisions (s.151–153.1 or s.271–273), specified abduction/forcible confinement provisions (s.279 or s.280–283) and murder with respect to the same victim and the same event or series of events. When that factual and legal threshold is met the law requires life imprisonment with parole ineligibility for at least 25 years, or until the longer period ordered under the new s.745.52 expires. The drafting ties together several offence clusters and creates a single enhanced parole‑bar category rather than separate consecutive bars.
Mandatory jury question and advisory recommendation
After a guilty verdict on the covered offences the presiding judge must put a prescribed question to the jury asking whether they wish to recommend a parole‑ineligibility period above 25 and up to 40 years. The provision makes the jury’s role optional and advisory: jurors are not required to make a recommendation and the judge retains final authority. This introduces a sentencing‑related interaction into the jury’s provincial role and raises practical questions about timing, juror instructions and how an advisory recommendation will be framed and recorded in the trial record.
Sentencing judge’s power to set parole‑ineligibility between 25 and 40 years
At sentencing the judge who presided at trial — or another judge of the same court if the trial judge is unavailable — may substitute for the default 25‑year bar any longer period up to 40 years, having regard to the accused’s character, the nature of the offences and the surrounding circumstances, and the jury’s recommendation, if any. The power is discretionary (not mandatory), and the statute lists the factors the judge must consider; practitioners will need to develop argument and record‑keeping practices for how those factors are weighed and how jury recommendations are addressed in the sentencing reasons.
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 statutory increase in parole ineligibility and the jury‑recommendation mechanism aim to provide greater temporal certainty of longer custody periods and a formal opportunity for community voice in sentencing decisions.
- Prosecutors and Crown counsel: the bill supplies an additional sentencing tool for cases involving combined sexual/abduction and homicide facts, strengthening the Crown’s position at sentencing and potentially reducing requests for shorter parole bars in those cases.
- Public safety and victim‑advocacy organizations: longer parole bars for particularly brutal, multi‑component offences align with incapacitation and denunciation priorities and give these groups clearer legal benchmarks to cite.
Who Bears the Cost
- Accused persons and defence counsel: defendants face longer minimum custody exposure and must address a new calibration of sentencing risk; defence teams will need to litigate the factual nexus (same victim, same event/series) and challenge expanded parole bars.
- Courts and judges: trial courts must add a procedural step (the jury question), and sentencing judges must formally consider jury recommendations and new statutory factors, increasing sentencing workload and the need for detailed written reasons.
- Correctional and parole systems: extended minimum periods will delay Parole Board reviews and increase long‑term incarceration costs for a subset of inmates; administrators will see heavier caseloads of inmates whose earliest review dates shift decades later.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central tension pits two legitimate priorities: public demand for stronger incapacitation and denunciation in cases of combined abduction, sexual violence and murder, versus legal commitments to individualized sentencing, proportionality and procedural fairness — especially when non‑expert jurors are invited to influence long‑term liberty outcomes and judges must reconcile advisory recommendations with statutory sentencing principles.
The bill creates several implementation and legal tensions. First, tying an extended parole‑ineligibility bar to a factual combination of offences (the same victim, the same event or series of events) invites litigation over whether different offences arose from a single transaction or distinct incidents, a factual inquiry that will affect whether the enhanced bar applies.
Second, inserting a non‑binding jury recommendation into the post‑verdict phase alters jury work and may produce record‑keeping and instruction issues: trial judges must avoid suggesting jurors perform sentencing analysis beyond their competence while still eliciting a meaningful recommendation.
There is also an unanswered constitutional and doctrinal profile. Extending parole ineligibility to as much as 40 years raises questions about proportionality and principles governing cruel and unusual punishment and liberty interests; similarly, appellate courts will likely see challenges over how judges use jury recommendations and whether the statutory factors are sufficiently specific.
Administrative consequences are real: later Parole Board reviews, potential increases in appeals, and greater costs to confinement systems for a narrow but high‑impact class of offenders.
There's more to this law than the bill.
Codify Laws traces every connection across the legislative lifecycle.