This bill inserts a new Criminal Code section that defines “sexual assault material” as visual recordings that depict non‑consensual sexual intercourse or other sexual activity in an explicit and realistic way, and makes a range of acts involving such material criminal. It establishes offences and tiered penalties for making or publishing (up to 14 years or $100,000 fine), distributing or transmitting (same maximums), possessing (up to 5 years or summary penalties), and accessing/viewing (up to 10 years or summary penalties) this material.
The court must treat profit motive as an aggravating factor.
Beyond criminalising commercial exploitation, the bill narrows an available consent defence: an accused’s belief in consent only succeeds if they took “all reasonable steps” both to confirm consent and to ensure the resulting recording does not present the activity as non‑consensual. It preserves a roll‑call of legitimate purposes — administration of justice, science, medicine, education or art — as a complete defence.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill makes production, distribution, possession and access to visual recordings that depict sexual activity as non‑consensual into discrete Criminal Code offences, each carrying specified maximum jail terms and fines; it also requires courts to treat profit intent as aggravating. The new definition focuses on explicit, realistic depiction and on violation of a person’s sexual integrity.
Who It Affects
Affected parties include creators and publishers of sexual content, online platforms and hosting services, ISPs, sexual‑assault survivors and advocates, and prosecutors and defence lawyers dealing with evidence of intimate images. It also affects researchers, artists and medical or legal professionals who use such material in their work if they cannot show a legitimate purpose.
Why It Matters
This is a substantive criminalisation of a class of image‑based sexual harm that has been handled piecemeal through existing offences and civil remedies. It centralizes liability for images that portray sexual assault and sets specific sentencing ranges and a higher sentencing ceiling where profit is alleged.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill creates a new standalone offence category for “sexual assault material” — a term the text defines narrowly as a visual recording that explicitly and realistically depicts sexual activity as non‑consensual or otherwise violating someone’s sexual integrity. By framing the harm around depiction and sexual integrity rather than only around the victim’s bodily injury or the use of force, the draft targets recordings whose primary harm is the reproduction and circulation of an experience of sexual violation.
It then attaches a suite of criminal prohibitions to that definition. The most serious offences—making, printing, publishing or possessing for purpose of publication, and distribution or transmission for commercial or public circulation—carry the highest maximum penalties (up to 14 years in prison or large fines).
Separate, lower ceilings apply to simple possession and to accessing/viewing. The text uses “knowingly” as the mens rea element for most offences, which means prosecutors must prove knowledge about the content in question.The bill changes the landscape for consent defences.
An accused cannot rely on a mere belief in consent unless they can show they took all reasonable steps both to verify consent and to ensure the recording would not portray the activity as non‑consensual. That is a two‑part, active inquiry: it looks at pre‑recording steps and at editorial or framing choices that might make consensual acts appear non‑consensual.
Separately, the bill preserves categorical defences for conduct tied to court processes or to legitimate scientific, medical, educational or artistic activity, but those defences will likely require documentary evidence or institutional context to succeed.Operationally, the bill pushes responsibility into three places: the person who creates or circulates images, the platforms that host or transmit them, and the courts that will interpret the consents and legitimate‑purpose exceptions. Because possession and accessing are criminalized, large swathes of private behaviour—downloading, streaming, or viewing—become prosecutable if the content meets the statutory definition and the viewer’s knowledge can be proven.
The profit aggravator signals tougher sentences where commercialization is shown, which creates a stronger enforcement focus on marketplaces and advertising channels that monetize such material.
The Five Things You Need to Know
Definition: “Sexual assault material” is a visual recording that depicts, in an explicit and realistic way, non‑consensual sexual intercourse or other sexual activity that violates a person’s sexual integrity.
Highest penalties: Making, publishing or possessing for publication, and distributing or transmitting sexual assault material are indictable offences punishable by up to 14 years’ imprisonment or fines up to $100,000, or both.
Possession and access tiers: Simple possession is punishable up to 5 years (indictable) or summary penalties; accessing/viewing is punishable up to 10 years (indictable) or summary penalties.
Consent defence narrowed: An accused’s belief in consent is not a defence unless they took all reasonable steps to both verify consent and ensure the recording would not portray the activity as non‑consensual.
Profit as aggravator and legitimate‑purpose carve‑outs: Courts must treat intent to profit as an aggravating factor; but the bill exempts conduct with a legitimate purpose related to justice, science, medicine, education or art.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Definition — what counts as sexual assault material
This subsection defines the statutory subject matter: a visual recording (photo, film, video, etc.) that depicts non‑consensual sexual intercourse or other sexual activity in an explicit and realistic way and that violates sexual integrity. Practically, this is a depiction‑focused definition rather than a conduct‑only definition; courts will need to parse “explicit,” “realistic” and “violates sexual integrity,” which are fact‑intensive and potentially subjective determinations.
Making or publishing — top‑tier production offence
This provision makes knowingly making, printing, publishing or possessing for the purpose of publication sexual assault material an indictable offence with a maximum of 14 years or a significant fine. The provision targets creators and anyone who prepares material for publication; the ‘possesses for the purpose of publication’ language captures preparatory conduct and may reach intermediaries who curate or ready material for release.
Distribution and transmission — top‑tier circulation offence
This subsection criminalizes knowingly transmitting, making available, distributing, selling, advertising, importing, exporting or possessing for those commercial or distribution purposes. It mirrors (2) in penalty structure, but extends liability to commercial and cross‑border supply chains — platforms, marketplaces, and import/export actors can fall within its scope if they knowingly engage with the material.
Possession — mid‑tier possession offence
Simple knowing possession of sexual assault material is punishable either as an indictable offence (up to five years and a $50,000 fine) or on summary conviction (shorter jail term, smaller fine). The dual‑mode sentencing gives prosecutors charging discretion but also raises questions about proportionality where the possessor did not create or distribute the material.
Accessing/viewing — separate offence for consuming content
The bill makes accessing sexual assault material an offence that carries its own ceiling (up to 10 years or fines). Subsection (6) clarifies that accessing includes knowingly causing the material to be viewed by, or transmitted to, oneself — covering both passive viewing (streaming) and active retrieval. Prosecutors must prove the accused’s knowledge and intentionality to secure convictions under this clause.
Interpretation of accessing
This brief subsection defines access for enforcement: a person ‘accesses’ the material if they knowingly cause it to be viewed by or transmitted to themselves. The provision is designed to capture modern consumption patterns (downloads, streams, direct messages), but it will raise evidentiary questions about how knowledge and causation are shown in encrypted or ephemeral messaging environments.
Aggravating factor — profit motive
If the court convicts a person under this section, it must consider proof of intent to make a profit as an aggravating factor at sentencing. This does not create a separate offence for commercial exploitation, but signals that commercialisation will increase sentence severity and directs prosecutors to develop evidence around monetization.
Consent defence — active verification required
Subsection (8) removes a simple honest‑belief defence: an accused’s belief that depicted activity was consensual only works if they took all reasonable steps to ascertain consent and to ensure the final material did not depict the activity as non‑consensual. That imposes a proactive duty on producers and subjects both to document consent processes and to control editing/marketing that could reframe consensual acts as assaults.
Legitimate‑purpose defence — narrow institutional exceptions
This subsection creates a categorical exclusion from conviction where the challenged conduct has a legitimate purpose tied to the administration of justice or to recognized institutional activities in science, medicine, education or art. The defence is categorical but limited: actors relying on it should expect to justify their purpose with context and evidence, and courts will be asked to draw lines between protected and unprotected expressive or research activity.
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
- Survivors of sexual violence and advocacy groups — they gain a statutory tool specifically targeting circulation of recordings that depict their violation, which can support prosecutions and deterrence beyond existing offences.
- Prosecutors and law enforcement — a focused offence removes ambiguity about charging choices and gives clear penalty ranges and an express aggravator for profit, simplifying case framing for image‑based sexual harms.
- Consumer protection and platform regulators — the bill creates a legal hook to push platforms toward proactive removal and monitoring where material is commercially circulated, strengthening enforcement leverage.
- Child‑protection enforcers — while child sexual material is already criminalized, the new regime provides an additional statutory pathway to address images that depict assault where the existing statutes may not fit neatly.
- Organizations doing clinical, educational or artistic work — they retain an explicit defence for legitimate institutional purposes, which preserves certain research and pedagogical uses (subject to evidentiary proof).
Who Bears the Cost
- Adult consensual content creators and sex‑work platforms — they face increased compliance risk and potential criminal exposure where simulated non‑consensual scenes or ambiguous framing exist, and must adopt robust consent documentation and editorial controls.
- Online platforms, hosting providers and marketplaces — they will incur higher moderation, takedown, recordkeeping and legal‑review costs and may face greater liability risk if prosecutors allege knowing facilitation or possession for distribution.
- ISPs and small intermediaries — smaller actors without large compliance teams may struggle with content assessment, takedown timelines and responding to cross‑border requests, raising operational and legal costs.
- Courts and criminal justice system — the system will absorb more complex evidentiary disputes over depiction, consent verification, and user knowledge, increasing litigation time and resource needs.
- Researchers and independent artists — while a defence exists, proving a legitimate scientific, medical, educational or artistic purpose may require institutional sponsorship or documentation, adding administrative barriers to projects that rely on realistic material.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The bill tries to reconcile two strong objectives—protecting survivors by criminalizing the creation and circulation of images that depict sexual violation, and preserving adult sexual autonomy and expressive freedom—but the chosen mechanisms (broad depiction‑focused definition, criminalized possession and access, and a high procedural burden for consent defences) risk overbreadth and chilling effects that could criminalize consensual adult expression and legitimate artistic or research uses.
The bill raises several implementation and doctrinal challenges. First, the core definitional terms—“explicit,” “realistic,” and “violates a person’s sexual integrity”—are fact‑sensitive and lack statutory elaboration, which will produce litigation over boundaries and may result in uneven application across jurisdictions.
Second, the mens rea words (primarily “knowingly”) focus prosecutions on conscious actors, but prosecuting access offences will often require circumstantial proof about what a viewer knew and intended when streaming or downloading content, a difficult burden in ephemeral and encrypted digital environments.
Third, narrowing the consent defence by imposing a duty to take “all reasonable steps” creates uncertainty about what procedures suffice: is a signed consent form enough? Does the production need third‑party verification?
The requirement to also ensure the material “did not depict the activity as being non‑consensual” imports an editorial duty that can chill legitimate portrayals—particularly in BDSM, art, or consensual role play—because small framing or camera choices might be argued to render the depiction ‘realistic’ and hence criminal. Finally, overlap with existing offences (sexual assault, voyeurism, child sexual offences, revenge porn statutes) is likely; the bill does not clarify whether courts should prefer the new section or older provisions when multiple offences fit the same facts, which could complicate charging strategies and appeals.
There's more to this law than the bill.
Codify Laws traces every connection across the legislative lifecycle.