Bill 236 amends The Highway Traffic Act to treat motor vehicles used to commit criminal harassment as instruments subject to seizure, impoundment and, for repeat offenders, forfeiture. It also creates automatic, graduated driver's licence suspensions on conviction where a vehicle was used in the offence.
The changes give peace officers mandatory authority to seize vehicles discovered in the course of a criminal harassment offence, expand the circumstances where a justice can authorize seizure and entry, set fixed impound periods (including longer terms for owners with prior seizures), and make a vehicle liable to forfeiture when an accused has two or more prior vehicle-related criminal harassment offences within ten years. The package shifts enforcement tools toward removing access to vehicles as a stalking deterrent and creates new compliance and administrative responsibilities for police, courts and vehicle owners.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill requires a peace officer to seize and impound a motor vehicle if the officer discovers it is being used to commit criminal harassment, defines repeat-vehicle offences as exposing a vehicle to possible forfeiture, and imposes mandatory licence suspensions on convictions tied to vehicle use. It also authorizes justices to order seizure and entry where reasonably justified.
Who It Affects
Police services and provincial enforcement officers who must effect seizures, impound operators and courts that process applications and appeals, registered vehicle owners who may face impoundment or forfeiture even if they were not driving, and convicted offenders whose driving privileges are automatically suspended.
Why It Matters
This law converts vehicles used in stalking into an enforceable lever — not just a prosecutorial fact — by attaching administrative consequences and property remedies. That changes tactical decisions for police and alters risk calculations for owners and alleged offenders, especially repeat offenders.
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 targeted definition that treats a Criminal Code section 264 offence as a 'criminal harassment offence' for purposes of the Highway Traffic Act when a motor vehicle is used in the commission of the offence. That linkage is the pivot: it brings vehicle-focused police and administrative tools into play whenever a motor vehicle facilitates stalking or harassment as defined by section 264.
Under the new regime, a peace officer who discovers that a vehicle is being used to commit criminal harassment must seize and impound that vehicle, subject to the limited exceptions already present elsewhere in the Act. When seizing a vehicle under this new provision the officer is required to record certain information, including the name and address of any passenger the officer finds committing the offence.
A justice may also, on application, authorize seizure and impoundment and permit peace officers to enter premises where the vehicle is stored; the bill replaces the prior justice-order provision to explicitly include vehicle use in criminal harassment as a basis for such orders.The statute establishes specific impound periods tied to the nature of the seizure: a standard 30-day impound for seizures made because of criminal harassment, and a mandatory 90-day impound where the vehicle is registered to a person who, in the previous ten years, was the owner of a vehicle seized under the same criminal-harassment provision. The Act also clarifies that "motor vehicle" includes off-road vehicles but excludes stolen vehicles in the definition section that feeds the forfeiture provisions.For repeat offenders, the bill creates a forfeiture trigger: if an alleged offender uses a motor vehicle to commit criminal harassment and had two or more such offences within the prior ten years, the vehicle becomes liable to forfeiture to the government.
Separately, the bill inserts automatic, graduated suspensions of driving privileges on conviction where a vehicle was used: six months for a person without a prior vehicle-related criminal harassment conviction in the previous ten years, one year for someone with a single prior conviction in that window, and lifetime disqualification for two or more prior convictions. A transition clause prevents the new licence suspensions from applying to offences committed before these provisions come into force.
The Act comes into force 90 days after royal assent.
The Five Things You Need to Know
A peace officer must seize and impound any motor vehicle the officer discovers is being used to commit a criminal harassment offence (new subsection 242.1(1.1.2)).
Standard impound for a seizure under the criminal harassment provision is 30 days (new clause 7.1(i.1)).
If the vehicle is registered to someone who, within the prior ten years, had a vehicle seized under the same criminal-harassment provision, the vehicle must be impounded for 90 days (new subsection 242.1(7.1.2.1)).
A motor vehicle used to commit a criminal harassment offence is liable to forfeiture if the alleged offender committed two or more such offences within the previous ten years (new subsection 242.3(4.1)).
On conviction where a vehicle was used, the bill mandates licence suspension and driving disqualification: six months with no qualifying prior, one year with one prior within ten years, and lifetime disqualification with two or more priors; the rule does not apply to offences committed before the provision comes into force (new subsection 264(6.2) and transition 6.3).
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Defines 'criminal harassment offence' for traffic law purposes
This amendment inserts a focused definition into subsection 242.1(1) of The Highway Traffic Act that links the provincial vehicle regime to the federal Criminal Code offence in section 264 when a motor vehicle is used. By doing that, the Act treats vehicle-assisted stalking as a distinct trigger for traffic-based enforcement and remedies; that linkage is the statutory needle that activates the seizure, impoundment, forfeiture and licence-suspension machinery elsewhere in the Act.
Mandatory seizure and impoundment when vehicle is used in harassment
The bill adds subsection 242.1(1.1.2), which requires a peace officer to seize and impound a motor vehicle when the officer discovers it is being used to commit criminal harassment, subject to the Act's existing exceptions. The changes to adjacent subsections fold this new mandatory seizure into the Act's administrative and review framework so it interacts with existing notice, appeal and release processes.
Impound-recording requirements and graduated impound durations
Clause amendments require officers to record additional information when a vehicle is seized for criminal harassment, including the name and address of any passenger the officer discovers committing the offence. The Act sets a baseline 30-day impound for seizures under the new criminal-harassment provision and creates a separate 90-day mandatory impound when the vehicle is registered to a person who, within ten years, had another vehicle seized under the same provision. Other subsections are adjusted so appeal windows and application timing reference the new 7.1.2.1 provision.
Justice's authority to order seizure and entry expanded
The replacement of subsection 242.1(14) makes clear that a justice may, on application by a peace officer, order seizure and impoundment and authorize entry into premises to retrieve a vehicle when there are reasonable grounds to believe the vehicle was operated or used in a criminal harassment offence. Practically, this lowers procedural friction for officers who need a judicial order to access vehicles stored on private property.
Forfeiture threshold and motor vehicle definition
The bill amends section 242.3 to include an explicit forfeiture rule: a vehicle is liable to forfeiture if it was used to commit a criminal harassment offence and the alleged offender committed two or more such offences within the previous ten years. It also clarifies that the Act's definition of 'motor vehicle' includes off-road vehicles but excludes stolen vehicles, which affects which machines are susceptible to seizure and forfeiture.
Automatic, graduated driver's licence suspensions on conviction
New subsections inserted at 264(6.2) create automatic suspension and disqualification of a person's licence on conviction for a criminal harassment offence where a vehicle was used. The suspension is six months for a first qualifying conviction in a ten-year look-back, one year for a second qualifying conviction within ten years, and life disqualification for a third or subsequent qualifying conviction within ten years. A transition provision (264(6.3)) prevents these suspensions from applying to offences committed before the subsection comes into force.
Coming into force
The Act specifies a delayed commencement: the provisions come into force 90 days after royal assent. That delay gives police, courts, registries and impound operators a short implementation window to adjust procedures and notify stakeholders.
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
- People targeted by vehicle-assisted stalking — The seizure and impound authority removes immediate access to a tool commonly used in persistent harassment, increasing short-term safety options for victims and reducing the offender's capacity to follow or intimidate.
- Police and enforcement officers — The bill provides mandatory authority and clearer judicial-order grounds to seize vehicles and enter storage locations, simplifying operational decision-making in stalking incidents involving vehicles.
- Prosecutors and victim advocates — Forfeiture and licence-suspension provisions create additional leverage to pursue compliance and offer remedies that go beyond criminal sentences, especially against repeat offenders.
Who Bears the Cost
- Registered vehicle owners and co-owners — Owners can face impoundment or forfeiture even if they were not the driver at the time of the offence; although an owner-defense exists, the disruption, loss of access and administrative burden fall first on owners.
- Police services and impound operators — Agencies will absorb operational costs: additional seizures, evidence processing, storage and court applications (including justice-order entry requests) increase workload and may require funding or policy adjustments.
- Convicted persons and their families — Mandatory licence suspensions (including lifetime disqualification for multiple offences) carry collateral costs such as job loss, income disruption and reduced rehabilitation options, which have wider social and economic consequences.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is balancing immediate victim protection and deterrence — removing vehicles used in stalking — against property rights and due-process protections for owners and drivers: the bill privileges swift administrative removal of access to vehicles but risks imposing significant collateral harm on innocent owners and on convicted individuals through far-reaching suspensions and forfeiture.
The bill creates powerful, property-focused consequences that can be applied before final conviction in some respects (seizure and impound occur on discovery), while other consequences (licence suspension and forfeiture) are tied to conviction or the accused's history. That mixed timing raises familiar tensions about pre-conviction harms: an impound can immediately deprive an owner of transport and trigger financial loss while criminal charges proceed.
The Act keeps an owner's "reasonable expectation" defence in place, but proving that in practice may be harder for rental companies, households with shared vehicles, or owners who loan a vehicle to someone whose unlawful use they did not foresee.
The statutory language also leaves several operational questions open. The trigger phrase "discovers that the motor vehicle is being used" is fact-dependent: does an officer's reasonable suspicion suffice or must an offence be observed or proven?
The forfeiture rule depends on the alleged offender's prior offences within ten years, which will require coordination between criminal records, vehicle registration, and prosecutorial records; disputes about whether prior convictions qualify could increase litigation. Privacy concerns arise from requiring officers to record passenger information and from the government's retention or public disclosure of forfeited assets.
Finally, the lifetime licence disqualification for repeat convictions is blunt and may raise proportionality concerns in sentencing and rehabilitation contexts.
There's more to this law than the bill.
Codify Laws traces every connection across the legislative lifecycle.