This bill creates The Criminal Trespassers Act and amends The Occupiers’ Liability Act to limit civil liability for occupiers where a person aged 12 or older enters premises without permission for the purpose of committing a crime. In those cases, the occupier cannot be sued for injury or death arising while the trespasser is on the premises, unless the occupier’s conduct was wilful and grossly disproportionate and leads to an indictable criminal conviction.
The measure also pauses limitation periods for claims of this type until a related criminal conviction and all appeals are final, and it expands an existing limited-duty provision in the Occupiers’ Liability Act to cover any person 12 or older who enters without consent. The practical effect is to shift a substantial portion of accountability for on-site harm into the criminal justice process, with implications for property owners, insurers, prosecutors and potential plaintiffs.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill bars civil actions against occupiers for injury or death of a trespasser aged 12+ who entered without consent to commit a crime, unless the occupier’s conduct was wilful and grossly disproportionate and resulted in an indictable conviction. It also amends the Limitations Act so time to sue is suspended until conviction and final appeal.
Who It Affects
Private and public occupiers (landlords, businesses, property managers, municipalities), insurers that cover occupier liability, security personnel, and individuals who might otherwise bring tort claims after being injured while trespassing to commit a crime.
Why It Matters
The bill redirects civil remedies into criminal adjudication: injured trespassers must rely on a criminal conviction to unlock civil liability, which changes litigation timing, evidence burdens, insurers’ exposure, and prosecutors’ role in resolving disputes that previously ran through civil courts.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The Criminal Trespassers Act creates a bright-line rule: if someone aged 12 or older goes onto occupied premises without permission and for the purpose of committing a criminal act (or the occupier reasonably believes that is the case), the occupier cannot be sued for injury or death that occurs while the trespasser is on the property. The protection applies irrespective of other common-law or statutory duties, subject to the carve-out described below.
That carve-out is narrow and twofold. An occupier can still face civil liability only where the occupier’s conduct was both wilful and grossly disproportionate in the circumstances, and that conduct leads to a criminal conviction prosecuted by indictment under the Criminal Code.
In practice this ties civil exposure to a high criminal threshold: the occupier’s behaviour must meet a criminal standard and be tried as an indictable offence; mere civil findings or summary convictions will not trigger the exception.The bill also changes the timing for bringing claims. It amends Manitoba’s Limitations Act so the limitation period for a claim that would otherwise fall under this new bar does not run while criminal proceedings against the occupier are underway; the suspension lasts until a conviction and any appeals are exhausted.
That design preserves plaintiffs’ ability to sue if an occupier is criminally convicted, but it makes the ability to pursue a civil remedy contingent on prosecutorial choices and the criminal process timeline.Finally, the Occupiers’ Liability Act is adjusted to broaden an existing “limited duty” provision: any person aged 12 or older who enters without consent triggers the occupier’s reduced duty of care under the statute. A prior subsection (3(4.1)) is repealed.
The bill affirms that there can be multiple occupiers of the same premises and includes routine coming-into-force language: the Act and Schedules come into effect on royal assent or as otherwise provided in each Schedule.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill bars civil actions against occupiers for injury or death of a person aged 12+ who trespasses to commit a criminal act or is reasonably believed to be there to commit one.
The occupier remains civilly liable only if their conduct was wilful and grossly disproportionate and resulted in a Criminal Code conviction prosecuted by indictment.
The Limitations Act is amended so limitation periods for these claims are suspended until the occupier is convicted and all appeals are exhausted.
The Occupiers’ Liability Act’s limited-duty provision is expanded to apply to any person aged 12 or older who enters premises without consent; subsection 3(4.1) is repealed.
The Acts recognize that more than one person can be an occupier of the same premises, preserving shared-liability contexts.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Definitions and multiple occupiers
This section imports the Occupiers’ Liability Act meanings of “occupier” and “premises” and expressly allows more than one occupier for the same property. Practically, that preserves established statutory definitions and ensures the bill applies in shared-occupancy situations (multi-tenant buildings, leased sections, or public-private arrangements) without requiring new definitions.
Statutory bar to civil liability for criminal trespassers
Section 2(1) establishes the central rule: no civil action lies against an occupier for injury or death of a person 12+ who entered without permission for the purpose of committing a crime (or where that intent is reasonably believed) and who is injured while on the premises. The three-part trigger (unauthorized entry, criminal purpose or reasonable belief, and the injury occurring while on the premises) creates an objective test occupiers can point to in defending tort suits.
Exception tied to wilful, grossly disproportionate conduct and indictable conviction
Subsection 2(2) narrows the bar by allowing civil liability where the occupier’s conduct was wilful and grossly disproportionate and that conduct results in the occupier being convicted of an indictable Criminal Code offence. This provision ties civil relief to a criminal finding and limits recoveries when occupier force or conduct is excessive enough to attract a serious criminal charge and conviction.
Amendment to the Limitations Act — suspension of limitation periods
The bill inserts section 16.1 into the Limitations Act to stop limitation time running for claims covered by Schedule A while criminal proceedings against the occupier are in process and until conviction and appeal exhaustion. That prevents claims from becoming time-barred while the criminal system determines whether the occupier’s conduct falls within the exception, but it also links civil access directly to prosecutorial charging and the pace of criminal litigation.
Changes to occupier’s statutory duty of care
The Occupiers’ Liability Amendment Act replaces existing text in subsection 3(4) to extend the statute’s limited duty language to any person aged 12 or older who enters without consent, and it repeals subsection 3(4.1). This statutory shift narrows occupiers’ duties across the board for that age group when entry is unauthorized, which affects negligence claims regardless of whether the trespasser intended a crime.
Timing and effect
The main Act and each Schedule come into force on royal assent unless a Schedule specifies otherwise. Because the Limitations Act change pauses limitation periods until criminal proceedings conclude, the timing of prosecutions will determine when civil claims may proceed even after royal assent.
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
- Residential and commercial occupiers (landlords, retailers, property managers): the statutory bar reduces their exposure to civil suits arising from injuries to trespassers who entered to commit a crime, lowering litigation risk and potential payouts.
- Owners of high-risk premises (nightclubs, pharmacies, convenience stores): fewer tort claims related to incidents involving criminal activity could reduce legal costs and insurance-driven operational constraints.
- Insurers writing occupier liability policies: clearer statutory defenses may reduce claims frequency and payouts, allowing insurers to reassess premiums and reserves for occupier liability lines.
Who Bears the Cost
- Trespassers and potential plaintiffs aged 12+: they lose a straightforward civil avenue to compensation for injuries sustained while committing or attempting to commit crimes unless an occupier is criminally convicted.
- Prosecutors and police: the effectiveness of civil redress becomes contingent on criminal proceedings, potentially increasing pressure on Crown counsel and law enforcement to lay and pursue indictable charges.
- Insurers and occupiers facing accusations of excessive force: they may confront complex criminal proceedings first; insurers might dispute coverage where occupier conduct triggers criminal investigations, producing litigation over policy obligations.
- Civil justice system and claimants generally: cases will be stayed or delayed pending criminal outcomes, producing longer timelines and evidentiary complications for civil plaintiffs and defendants.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The bill prioritizes protecting occupiers from civil exposure where the injured party was committing a crime, but it does so by making civil accountability contingent on rare and resource-intensive criminal outcomes; the trade-off is between reducing defensive liability for property holders and preserving accessible civil remedies for victims of excessive force — a conflict with no tidy policy compromise.
The bill anchors civil liability on the outcome of criminal prosecutions, which creates several implementation and fairness questions. Requiring an indictable conviction that is prosecuted by indictment means that many instances of excessive conduct that lead only to summary convictions, civil findings, or no criminal charge at all will remain immune from civil suit; injured trespassers may be left without recourse if prosecutors decline to press or pursue an indictable case.
Conversely, occupiers who use force face criminal exposure and the uncertainty of parallel criminal and civil inquiries.
Operationally, suspending limitation periods until conviction and final appeal can freeze civil litigation for years. That places a real burden on plaintiffs to secure criminal convictions often beyond their control, while defendants must live with the prospect of civil liability hanging in abeyance.
The statutory standard “wilful and grossly disproportionate” is deliberately broad and will require judicial gloss; courts will need to reconcile that civil label with criminal elements and mens rea, and insurers will litigate whether coverage triggers apply during criminal investigations. The interplay with federal Criminal Code procedures (indictable vs. summary processes) and prosecutorial discretion creates a dependency on criminal process choices that could produce inconsistent remedies across similar factual scenarios.
There's more to this law than the bill.
Codify Laws traces every connection across the legislative lifecycle.