Skip to content

New pardon rules may spark quagmire

|Written By Tim Naumetz

OTTAWA - The decision by the House of Commons to rush through an overhaul of criminal pardons may result in a quagmire of appeals over a major hurdle for obtaining them under the new regime, says Liberal Senator George Baker.

The sticking point could be the inclusion of a term from the Charter of Rights and Freedoms as one of the conditions that would allow the National Parole Board to grant a pardon after an offender has passed a new wait time of 10 years following completion of a sentence.

Under the legislation, parole board panels will be able to grant pardons if the applicant has been of good conduct and not been convicted of an offence under any act of Parliament.

At the same time, the pardon would provide a “measurable benefit” to the applicant, would “sustain” rehabilitation, and “would not bring the administration of justice into disrepute.”

In the French version of the new bill, as well as the s. 24 Charter term, the same phrase allows for a pardon as long as it’s not “susceptible” to bringing the administration of justice into disrepute. Courts have interpreted the French word “susceptible” to mean “could.”

The meaning is critical in Charter cases dealing with s. 24 in which evidence is being challenged on the grounds that the manner in which it was obtained infringed or violated an individual’s rights. The “could” threshold requires less certainty to prove.

National Parole Board members aren’t judges, Baker notes. While many of them are qualified

and must pass written and oral exams before getting a position on the board, they’re not trained in legal interpretation.

“These are parole board members, not judges, and this could increase the number of appeals to Federal Court,” he tells Law Times.

Ottawa defence lawyer Mark Ertel goes further, saying parole board members, unlike the courts, will likely not be bound by a 1987 Supreme Court of Canada decision, R. v. Collins, that ruled all courts must use the lower-threshold French interpretation regardless of the language in which the accused has chosen to be heard.

He notes that was the first s. 24.2 case for excluding evidence and believes the new legislation will only add to the roadblocks and difficulties it already presents for offenders seeking pardons.

“The Criminal Records Act is not criminal legislation, so it won’t be interpreted strictly in favour of the accused person or the person applying for the pardon,” Ertel tells Law Times.

“It would be interpreted in a purposive way, which is trying to figure out what the purpose of the legislation is. The purpose of the legislation, it would seem to me, is to give less people pardons.

If it’s not to give less people pardons, it’s to make it harder or more difficult to give a pardon and admit into the pardon regime an element of discretion.”

Ertel adds: “It turns it into a more political hearing, really - not political in the sense of people being appointed politically but that the public perception of the justice system is going to have a big impact on what happens here.”

The legislation is titled bill C-23A because opposition and government MPs unanimously singled out one element of another proposed set of amendments to the pardon and parole system and passed it through all Commons stages, including “deemed” committee passage, in two minutes as they rushed into an early summer recess beginning June 17.

The bill specifies manslaughter as among the personal injury offences the pardon terms cover, a designation aimed at preventing Karla Homolka from applying for a pardon in July.

MPs believed that had they waited until Parliament’s resumption in September to pass the original bill in its entirety, it would have been too late to prevent Homolka from qualifying for a pardon this summer.

However, Baker says National Parole Board officials indicated Homolka might not have been eligible for a pardon application until December under the existing regime because of a series of conditions a Quebec judge initially imposed upon her when she left prison in 2005.

  • Indefine condemnation

    they made the deal with the devil so they should be punished,not those who intend to seek employment and pay taxes.So why are we being punished on account of one individual and one government mistake.Even thr score with those individuals that did you wrong,leave the rest of us alone. we just want to get on with our lives
  • Judges not God.

    Who are you kidding. Judges have no better idea if a person will reoffend or not. But that is not the real question. Should these people be allowed to be doctors, nurses or teachers if they have had sex with a child? Or killed a person for fun like Karla?
    The law is stupid to begin with. This is not the issue. Pardoned citizens are people who must be repsectable and after you have killed another human being or put your penis or finger in a child for sexual purposes there is no resepect and clearly no room for you in a position of authority.
    Suck it up people. Committing a crime can be pardonable but does it mean you really are pardoned. I think not.
    The legal system has stepped into the Forrest Gump... Stupid is as stupid does. The law is an ass for letting these people out to begin with let alone hidding their criminal record.
    If they get out of jail becuase we think it is the right thing to do...then you invite them into your home to babysit your child.
    How does a child go to an Ontario College of Teacher approved sex offender who teachers sex ed and ask him or her for advise about help dealing with death, sexual abuse or a kind word....
    The Pardoned Criminal says "Gee I can remember when I was doing hard time and my bed buddy told me how hurt he was when I told him to wash his sink"
  • Sex Offenders and Pardons

    any one who has commited a sexual summary or inditable offence can, of course, recieve a pardon and their record will be held apart or sealed.

    the Canadian Police Information Centre (CPIC) will flag your name. and once flagged as a sex offender you legally have to divulge your crime if you are asked about it. plus you would never pass a vulnerable sector criminal record check. either way sex offenders don't really recieve the full effects of a pardon.

    check out the National Parlor Boards website. it does give a detailed explanation.
  • those bad school children....

    This is what happens when you try to pass a law without proper debate and discussion. This is going to create a much bigger mess than the one its trying to clean up. If kids are forced to go to school and do a decent days work the day before summer holidays, why can't MP's? Maybe we should make it mandatory to have at least a minimum period of debate before ANY law can be passed, to ensure this kind of thing doesn't happen again. For more info on Bill C-23, C-23A, and C-23B, check out my blog at
cover image


Subscribers get early and easy access to Law Times.

Law Times Poll

Ontario’s recent provincial budget calls for changes in benefits for catastrophically injured patients, including a ‘return to the default benefit limit of $2 million for those who are catastrophically injured in an accident, after it was previously reduced to $1 million in 2016.’ Do you agree with this shift?