Bill S-240 inserts a new subsection into Criminal Code section 163.1 that declares, pursuant to subsection 33(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, that the provisions imposing mandatory minimum sentences for possession and for accessing child sexual abuse and exploitation material shall operate notwithstanding section 12 of the Charter. The text does not change the substantive minimum sentences; it only attempts to immunize those specific paragraphs from s.12 (cruel and unusual punishment) challenges.
This matters because it represents a direct legislative effort to foreclose one route of Charter review for sentencing provisions already subject to rigorous s.12 scrutiny in Supreme Court jurisprudence. The bill raises immediate constitutional and practical questions about the scope and effectiveness of a s.33 declaration targeting s.12 and about the likely path of future litigation and sentencing practice if enacted.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill adds subsection 163.1(4.11) to the Criminal Code, declaring that the paragraphs in section 163.1 that set mandatory minimums for possession and accessing child sexual abuse and exploitation material operate notwithstanding Charter section 12. It leaves the statutory minimum terms themselves unchanged.
Who It Affects
The change directly affects accused persons charged with possession or accessing offences under s.163.1, defence counsel who raise s.12 challenges, Crown prosecutors who rely on mandatory minima, and courts asked to adjudicate the validity of the declaration. Corrections and parole authorities could see downstream effects if more offenders receive mandatory terms.
Why It Matters
If legally effective, the declaration would narrow one constitutional avenue (s.12) for challenging these mandatory minimums and could change plea bargaining and sentencing dynamics. If legally ineffective, the statute will almost certainly generate targeted litigation about the validity and remedy for a s.33-style declaration aimed at s.12.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
Bill S-240 does a single, narrow thing: it adds subsection 163.1(4.11) to the Criminal Code to declare that the two paragraphs of s.163.1 which set mandatory minimum penalties for possessing and for accessing child sexual abuse and exploitation material should operate notwithstanding section 12 of the Charter. The bill does not alter the wording of the offence provisions or the minimum sentences themselves; it is purely declaratory in form.
Understanding the practical effect requires a quick detour into the Charter. Subsection 33(1) allows Parliament and provincial legislatures to state that a law operates "notwithstanding" certain Charter protections, but that power has a defined scope in the Charter text and in constitutional practice.
Section 12—the protection against cruel and unusual punishment—is not listed among the rights that s.33(1) authorizes a legislature to override. Legal doctrine and Supreme Court precedent therefore treat s.33 declarations as inapplicable to s.12, which means a declaration that purports to immunize a provision from s.12 review is likely to be challenged as constitutionally ineffective.The immediate legal consequence of the bill, if enacted, will likely be litigation testing two linked questions: (1) whether a s.33(1)-style declaration can validly target s.12, and (2) if a court finds the declaration ineffective, what remedial outcome follows for the mandatory minimum paragraphs it purports to protect.
Practically, prosecutors may treat the declaration as a political signal that Parliament intends to defend mandatory minima, but courts will still confront settled s.12 principles when asked to assess whether a particular mandatory term is grossly disproportionate in an offender's circumstances.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill adds subsection 163.1(4.11) to the Criminal Code, declaring that the mandatory-minimum paragraphs for possession and accessing child sexual abuse and exploitation material operate notwithstanding Charter s.12.
It does not change the text or length of the mandatory minimum sentences in s.163.1; it addresses only the constitutional exposure of those paragraphs.
Subsection 33(1) (the notwithstanding clause) authorizes declarations with respect to sections 2 and 7–15 of the Charter; it does not, by text or settled interpretation, authorize legislatures to override section 12.
Because of that limits-of-s.33 issue, the declaration in this bill is likely to be the subject of targeted constitutional litigation over its legal validity and the appropriate remedy if courts hold it ineffective.
The bill contains no separate commencement provision; absent a special clause, any valid provisions would come into force on Royal Assent.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Adds a notwithstanding declaration targeted at s.12
This provision inserts a new subsection (4.11) into s.163.1 of the Criminal Code. The text states, in effect, that the specific paragraphs of s.163.1 that set mandatory minima for possession and accessing child sexual abuse and exploitation material "operate notwithstanding section 12 of the Charter." The drafting is narrowly targeted — it does not purport to change other Charter provisions or to amend the substantive penalty clauses themselves — but it attempts to use the mechanism of s.33(1) to immunize those paragraphs from s.12 review.
Declaration form versus constitutional scope
The provision is a declaratory device rather than a substantive penalty change, so its legal effect depends entirely on constitutional doctrine about s.33. Under the Charter's text and prevailing jurisprudence, s.33(1) does not authorize legislatures to override s.12. That creates a direct doctrinal mismatch between what the clause in s.163.1(4.11) attempts to do and the recognized reach of the notwithstanding power, which will be the focal point of any judicial review.
What courts will have to decide if challenged
If a court entertains a challenge, it will first confront whether the declaration is a permissible use of s.33. If the court finds the declaration ineffective, it will then address whether the underlying mandatory-minimum paragraphs remain subject to normal s.12 analysis and what remedy is appropriate. Courts have several remedial tools — striking the declaration, severing language, or striking the offending mandatory minimums if they are found to be grossly disproportionate — and the choice will shape future sentencing practice.
Prosecution, plea bargaining, and corrections
Independently of constitutional outcomes, the statutory declaration functions as a political and prosecutorial signal that Parliament intends to defend mandatory minima. That can influence Crown charging and plea strategies and could increase the number of cases that proceed to sentencing rather than resolve by plea. If convictions under the mandatory minima increase, corrections and parole systems may face practical impacts from additional fixed-term incarcerations.
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
- Crown prosecutors — the declaration signals legislative backing for pursuing and enforcing mandatory minimums, which can strengthen prosecution bargaining positions and charging decisions.
- Victim-survivors and advocacy organizations focused on child sexual exploitation — they may view stronger statutory protections and explicit legislative intent to preserve mandatory penalties as aligning with deterrence and denunciation goals.
- Legislators and policymakers who prioritize tougher mandatory sentences — the bill provides a clear statutory statement of intent and a political tool to defend those policies in public debate.
Who Bears the Cost
- Accused individuals facing possession or accessing charges — if mandatory minima are applied, certain offenders will face fixed minimum incarceration terms with reduced sentencing discretion.
- Defence counsel and legal aid systems — the declaration narrows one procedural avenue (s.12) for challenges and is likely to generate targeted, resource-intensive constitutional litigation over the declaration's validity.
- Federal government and taxpayers — successful litigation testing the declaration could produce legal costs and compensation claims; increased incarceration from enforced minima would raise corrections expenditures.
- Courts and judges — they must adjudicate novel legal questions about the scope of the notwithstanding power and craft remedies, adding complexity to already crowded dockets.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The bill pits Parliament's intent to insulate certain mandatory minimum sentences (aiming to prioritize denunciation and deterrence) against the Charter's protection from cruel and unusual punishment and the constitutional limits on the notwithstanding clause — a clash between legislative will to protect public safety and the judiciary's role in enforcing Charter safeguards that serve as a constitutional check on legislative punishment powers.
The bill raises a sharp constitutional and doctrinal tension: it purports to use s.33(1) to neutralize s.12 challenges, but the Charter's textual structure and settled jurisprudence limit s.33 to sections 2 and 7–15. That textual mismatch means that, on orthodox constitutional grounds, the declaration likely lacks legal effect against a serious s.12 attack.
Courts will therefore be asked not whether mandatory minima themselves violate the Charter (they may) but whether Parliament can immunize them by declaring them to operate notwithstanding a right the notwithstanding clause does not reach.
If a court holds the declaration ineffective, secondary questions become central and unpredictable: will a court simply ignore the declaration and proceed to assess the mandatory minimum under s.12; will it strike the declaration as invalid while leaving the mandatory minimum intact; or will it sever or strike down the mandatory minimum if found grossly disproportionate? Each remedial path has different policy and operational consequences.
The bill also functions as a political signal that can change prosecutorial behaviour regardless of judicial outcomes, which means its practical effects could differ from its legal effect. Finally, the short drafting and lack of accompanying explanatory notes leave open interpretive questions about the precise parliamentary intent and whether Parliament considered the recognised limits of s.33 when drafting this provision.
There's more to this law than the bill.
Codify Laws traces every connection across the legislative lifecycle.