45th Parliament · Session 1
Bill C-258: An Act to amend the Criminal Code to address the Supreme Court of Canada decision in R. v. Jordan
Introduced
December 3, 2025
Current Stage
OutsideOrderPrecedence
Last Updated
December 3, 2025
Sponsor
Rhéal Fortin
Community Support
Community Vote
0% Support
0 votes
Support
Undecided/Abstain
Oppose
Cast Your Vote
Your vote helps inform others
Engagement
Votes
0
Comments
0
Follows
0
Parliamentary Votes
0
Statements
0
Bill C-258
Wed Dec 03 2025
An Act to amend the Criminal Code to address the Supreme Court of Canada decision in R. v. Jordan
Impact Rating
5/5
Short Summary
Uses the Notwithstanding Clause to prevent serious criminals (like murderers) from having their charges dropped solely because their trial took too long.
This bill amends the Criminal Code to formally write into law the time limits for trials established by the Supreme Court in the landmark 'R. v. Jordan' decision (18 months for provincial courts, 30 months for superior courts). However, it introduces a major exception: it exempts 'primary designated offences' (serious violent crimes like murder and sexual assault) from these time limits. To do this, the bill invokes the 'Notwithstanding Clause' (Section 33 of the Charter) to override the accused's constitutional right to a trial within a reasonable time for these specific serious crimes.
Why does this bill exist?
Origin (Court Ruling)
Direct response to the 2016 Supreme Court decision 'R. v. Jordan', which set strict deadlines that have led to some serious charges being stayed.
Codifies the 'Jordan' time limits: 18 months for Provincial Court trials and 30 months for Superior Court trials.
If a trial takes longer than these limits, proceedings must normally be 'stayed' (charges dropped).
Creates a major exception: The time limits do NOT apply to 'primary designated offences' (e.g., murder, sexual assault, kidnapping).
Invokes the Notwithstanding Clause (Section 33) to explicitly override Section 11(b) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms for these serious offences.
Clarifies that delays caused by the defence do not count toward the time limit.
Allows prosecutors to exceed the time limits if they can prove 'exceptional circumstances' exist.
Victims of Violent Crime
(Rights Expanded)
Ensures their attacker cannot escape justice simply because the court system is slow.
Accused Persons (Serious Crimes)
(Rights Restricted)
They lose the constitutional protection against unreasonable delay; their trial could theoretically take years without penalty to the state.
Crown Prosecutors
(Easier)
They no longer have to fear having a murder case thrown out due to administrative delays.
Provincial Impact
Provincial Impact
Provinces administer the courts, so this relieves pressure on provincial court scheduling, but requires no legislative change from them.
Benefits & Pros
Prevents dangerous offenders (murderers, rapists) from walking free on a technicality due to court backlogs.
Prioritizes the rights of victims and their families to see justice done over the accused's right to a speedy trial.
Provides clear legislative rules for trial timelines rather than relying solely on court precedents.
Reduces the pressure on prosecutors to rush complex serious cases.
Beneficiaries
Risks & Cons
Suspends a fundamental Charter right (Section 11(b): right to be tried within a reasonable time) for a specific class of people.
Removes the incentive for the government to fund courts properly; if there is no penalty for delay, serious trials could drag on indefinitely.
Could lead to accused persons spending years in pre-trial custody (jail) without a conviction.
Using the Notwithstanding Clause in the Criminal Code is historically rare and controversial.
Affected Groups
Before & After
Currently: A person is accused of murder. Due to a lack of judges, the trial is delayed for 35 months. The judge must dismiss the charges, and the accused walks free. Under this Bill: The trial proceeds despite the delay, because murder is a 'primary designated offence' exempted from the time limit.
Real World Scenario
Currently: In 2017, a man accused of first-degree murder in Ontario was set free because his trial took 60 months to complete. Under this Bill: That man would not have been released; the trial would have continued to a verdict regardless of the 60-month delay.
Frequently Asked Questions
Sponsor
Member of Parliament
House of Commons
First reading
Completed on December 3, 2025
Second reading
Not yet started
Consideration in committee
Not yet started
Report stage
Not yet started
Third reading
Not yet started
Senate
First reading
Not yet started
Second reading
Not yet started
Third reading
Not yet started
Abuse Potential
The abuse potential here is systemic negligence rather than active malice. By exempting serious crimes from time limits, the government removes the 'ticking clock' that forces them to resource the justice system efficiently. A future government could underfund courts, leading to individuals accused (but not yet convicted) of serious crimes languishing in remand centers for 5, 7, or 10 years awaiting trial, with no constitutional remedy to force the process to move faster.
Implementation Risk
High. While the Notwithstanding Clause is legally valid, using it in the Criminal Code is unprecedented in this manner and will face intense scrutiny and potential ancillary legal challenges regarding the definition of 'primary designated offences'.
Broad Economic Impact
None.
Everyday Life
Minimal impact. Law-abiding citizens will see no change.
Admin Burden
Low. This is a legal framework change for judges and lawyers.
Timeline
Immediate upon Royal Assent.
