Bill C-255 inserts a new subsection in section 430 of the Criminal Code creating a specific mischief provision for religious property. It covers buildings and structures primarily used for religious worship (explicitly listing church, mosque, synagogue, temple), objects associated with worship on the grounds of such buildings, and cemeteries, and it prescribes a minimum compensation amount plus escalating custodial minimums for repeat offenders.
The law keeps the existing maximum penalties for mischief (up to 10 years on indictment; up to two years less a day on summary conviction) but forces a sentencing floor: at least $1,000 compensation for a first offence, $1,000 plus at least 14 days’ imprisonment for a second offence, and $1,000 plus at least 30 days for subsequent offences. That combination changes charging, plea bargaining and sentencing dynamics for property offences that affect religious sites and may prompt litigation over definitions and proportionality.
At a Glance
What It Does
Adds subsection (4.12) to s.430 of the Criminal Code to create a mischief category tied to religious property, lists covered property types, and sets mandatory minimum punishments including a $1,000 compensation floor and escalating minimum custodial terms for repeat offences. It leaves intact the existing maximum penalties for mischief on indictment and summary conviction.
Who It Affects
Religious congregations and institutions that own or occupy places of worship, cemetery owners and managers, Crown prosecutors, defence lawyers and judges who will apply the mandatory minimums, and police who will investigate and recommend charges. Municipalities and non-profits that operate cemeteries also fall squarely within the scope.
Why It Matters
The bill converts what has been discretionary sentence making into an offence with fixed minimum consequences, altering plea bargaining leverage and likely increasing short custodial sentences and restitution orders. It also raises predictable legal questions about definitions (e.g., 'primarily used') and proportionality that could shape future case law.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill adds a new subsection to the Criminal Code that treats damage to or interference with religious property as a distinct form of mischief. It identifies three categories of covered targets: buildings or parts of buildings primarily used for religious worship (with examples), objects associated with religious worship located on or in the grounds of such buildings, and cemeteries.
The text does not create a separate offence label beyond the subsection; it augments the existing mischief offence with mandatory consequences tied to those property types.
For any conviction under the new subsection the court must order a minimum compensation payment of not less than $1,000 to the property owner. That $1,000 floor applies regardless of whether the Crown proceeds by indictment or by summary conviction.
For second and subsequent convictions the statute layers on mandatory minimum terms of imprisonment — 14 days for a second offence and 30 days for each subsequent offence — in addition to the compensation obligation.The bill preserves the existing upper limits for mischief: where prosecuted by indictment the maximum remains up to 10 years’ imprisonment; where prosecuted summarily the maximum remains two years less a day. Practically, that means the new text creates a sentencing floor (compensation plus short mandatory custody for repeat offenders) without changing the potential maximum exposure.
The dichotomy — mandatory minimums at the low end and unchanged maximums at the high end — will shape charging strategy, plea negotiations and sentencing outcomes.Several implementation questions follow directly from the wording. The statute does not define “primarily used for religious worship” or “object associated with religious worship,” so courts will interpret scope on a case-by-case basis.
The Crown will also need to establish prior convictions before the court can impose the higher mandatory custodial minimums, which creates evidentiary steps at sentencing. Finally, while the $1,000 compensation floor is monetary, the bill does not create a special collection mechanism; compensation will be ordered under standard restitution or reparation procedures and may be difficult to collect in practice.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill inserts subsection (4.12) into s.430 of the Criminal Code to single out mischief against religious property.
It covers three targets: buildings/parts ‘primarily used for religious worship’ (examples given), objects associated with worship on the grounds, and cemeteries.
Every conviction under the new subsection requires compensation to the property owner of not less than $1,000, whether the case is indictable or summary.
Second offences carry a mandatory minimum of 14 days’ imprisonment plus the $1,000 compensation; each subsequent offence carries a mandatory minimum of 30 days plus the $1,000.
Maximum penalties for mischief remain unchanged: indictable up to 10 years; summary up to two years less a day — the bill establishes a floor, not a new ceiling.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Creates a new subsection specifically for religious property mischief
The single operative amendment adds subsection (4.12) to s.430 rather than replacing or redrafting existing mischief rules. That structure means the new rules operate in parallel with other mischief provisions; prosecutors can still choose the charging route that best fits the facts. The Bill frames the change as a categorical enhancement tied to the nature of the property rather than to the actor’s motive.
Defines covered property: places of worship, associated objects, and cemeteries
The scope language lists buildings or parts of buildings 'primarily used for religious worship' and gives examples (church, mosque, synagogue, temple), covers 'objects associated with religious worship' on the site, and includes cemeteries. Because the bill uses functional language (primarily used; objects associated), courts will need to resolve borderline cases — for example, multi-use community centres with occasional worship, or secular monuments on church grounds.
Sets mandatory minimum compensation and escalating custodial minimums
Subsection (a) establishes the mandatory financial and custodial floors: at least $1,000 compensation for a first offence; $1,000 and at least 14 days’ imprisonment for a second; $1,000 and at least 30 days for each subsequent offence. The provision explicitly applies these minimums regardless of whether the matter proceeds indictably or summarily, removing judicial discretion to impose a lighter sentence below those thresholds.
Retains existing indictable and summary maximums for mischief
Subsections (b) and (c) restate the current upper limits for s.430 mischief: up to 10 years on indictment, and up to two years less a day on summary conviction. Practically, prosecutors and defence counsel will see the statute as creating mandatory lower bounds while leaving the same high-end exposure in place, which affects risk calculus in plea negotiations.
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
- Religious congregations and property owners — receive a statutory compensation floor (minimum $1,000) and stronger deterrence via mandatory custodial minimums for repeat offenders.
- Cemetery owners and operators — gain a clear statutory remedy and minimum financial recovery for damage to burial grounds or monuments.
- Crown prosecutors — obtain a tailored charging tool with built-in sentencing floors that can be used where they want to signal enhanced protections for religious property.
- Faith-based advocacy groups — benefit politically and practically from explicit legislative recognition and a guaranteed monetary remedy for property harms.
Who Bears the Cost
- Accused individuals — face mandatory minimum custodial sentences for repeat convictions, reducing the court’s ability to impose non-custodial or restorative sanctions even for low-value or symbolic acts.
- Defence counsel and legal aid systems — may see greater workload from litigating scope, proportionality and prior-conviction proof; increased bail, sentencing and appeal work is likely.
- Correctional and court systems — short mandatory custodial terms for repeat offenders will increase demand on remand, court scheduling and jail capacity, raising operational costs.
- Municipalities and collection officers — while municipalities owning cemeteries get the right to compensation, collecting court-ordered restitution remains a practical cost and administrative burden.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is balancing stronger, predictable protection for religious property against the loss of individualized sentencing: the bill enhances deterrence and guarantees compensation, but does so by imposing mandatory minimums and bright‑line property categories that can produce disproportionate outcomes and predictable legal challenges over scope and proportionality.
The bill trades judicial flexibility for a statutory floor: courts lose the ability to impose sentences below the compensation and custodial minimums even where factual circumstances (minor damage, accidental conduct, or vulnerable offenders) might recommend a non-custodial response. That shift compresses sentencing discretion at the low end and may push more cases to custody or to contested hearings over prior convictions and scope.
Ambiguity in key terms — notably 'primarily used for religious worship' and 'object associated with religious worship' — invites litigation over whether multi‑use facilities, shared spaces, or secular monuments on religious land fall within the new provision. The requirement to compensate 'not less than $1,000' can produce outcomes where statutory restitution exceeds actual losses, raising practical collection questions and potential proportionality concerns.
Because the provision is tied to property type rather than motive, it can capture non-hate or accidental conduct, which raises the policy question of whether protection should track the victim’s identity/motive or the property’s function. Finally, proving prior convictions to trigger higher mandatory minimums adds evidentiary steps that can complicate sentencing and increase litigation costs.
There's more to this law than the bill.
Codify Laws traces every connection across the legislative lifecycle.