Canada has introduced significant criminal law reforms through the Protecting Victims Act, also known as Bill C-16. The legislation received Royal Assent on June 18, 2026, with most changes set to come into force on July 18, 2026. The federal government has framed the reforms as a response to child exploitation, online abuse, intimate partner violence, and emerging digital harms.
From a criminal defence perspective, the announcement is important for several reasons. Bill C-16 does not simply increase penalties for certain offences. It also changes how mandatory minimum penalties operate, creates new criminal offences, expands the sentencing landscape, and affects how cases involving digital evidence may be investigated and prosecuted.
For accused persons in Ontario, these changes may have a meaningful impact at every stage of a criminal case, from bail and charge screening to plea discussions, trial strategy, sentencing submissions, and Charter litigation.
What Bill C-16 Changes: Child Sexual Offences & Intimate Partner Abuse
Bill C-16 restores and reinforces mandatory minimum penalties of imprisonment for a range of offences, including several offences involving child sexual abuse and exploitation. Mandatory minimum penalties set the lowest sentence a court may impose for a particular offence, although the court may still impose a higher sentence depending on the circumstances.
The legislation also increases maximum penalties for several offences. These include non-consensual distribution of intimate images, voyeurism, sexual assault prosecuted summarily, indecent exposure, and obtaining sexual services from a person under 18. Maximum penalties do not dictate the sentence in every case, but they indicate how Parliament has classified the seriousness of the offence.
In addition, Bill C-16 creates new offences, including threatening to distribute child sexual abuse and exploitation material (CSAEM), threatening to distribute non-consensual intimate images, distributing bestiality depictions, recruiting youth into criminal activity, and coercive control of an intimate partner.
Why Mandatory Minimums Matter in Defence Cases
Mandatory minimum penalties have long been a major issue in Canadian sentencing law. In many cases, they reduce judicial flexibility by setting a minimum period of imprisonment, even where the circumstances of the offender or the offence might otherwise support a different sentencing outcome.
For criminal defence counsel, this affects the early assessment of a case. The existence of a mandatory minimum can influence whether a matter should proceed to trial, whether a resolution is available, what facts are admitted, and how the Crown frames the charge. It can also affect the pressure an accused person may feel when deciding whether to contest the allegations or resolve the case.
Bill C-16 is particularly notable because it seeks to restore mandatory minimums that had previously been found unconstitutional by courts. The legislation does this by introducing a limited discretion mechanism, allowing a sentencing judge to impose a lower sentence of imprisonment in rare cases where the mandatory minimum would be grossly disproportionate for the offender before the court.
The New Judicial Discretion Mechanism
The judicial discretion mechanism is central to the federal government’s approach. Rather than eliminating mandatory minimum penalties, the legislation preserves them while allowing an exception where applying the minimum sentence would breach constitutional standards.
This does not mean that non-custodial sentences will be broadly available where a mandatory minimum applies. The government’s background materials indicate that jail time is still required. The discretion is framed as allowing a lower sentence of imprisonment, not as opening the door to an entirely different sentencing category in most cases.
From a defence perspective, this may lead to more detailed sentencing hearings. Counsel may need to build a record addressing the offender’s background, role, moral culpability, circumstances of the offence, rehabilitation prospects, collateral consequences, and any features that could make the mandatory minimum grossly disproportionate in the individual case.
Charter Issues Will Remain Important
Bill C-16 is designed to make mandatory minimum penalties more resistant to future constitutional challenges. However, that does not mean Charter issues will disappear from criminal defence litigation.
Section 12 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms protects against cruel and unusual punishment. Courts have previously relied on section 12 to strike down mandatory minimum penalties where the required sentence was grossly disproportionate. Bill C-16 responds to that case law by adding discretion at the sentencing stage.
Future litigation may focus on how that discretion is interpreted and applied. Courts may be asked to determine what qualifies as a rare case, what evidence is required, how “grossly disproportionate” should be assessed, and whether the new framework is sufficient in practice to avoid unconstitutional punishment.
Increased Maximum Penalties and Sentencing Risk
The legislation also raises maximum penalties for certain offences. For example, the maximum penalty for non-consensual distribution of intimate images by indictment increases from five years to ten years. Voyeurism by indictment also increases from five years to 10 years. Exposure by indictment increases from two years to ten years.
Maximum penalties matter because they shape the legal range available to the court. They may influence Crown election, sentencing submissions, resolution discussions, and the perceived seriousness of the allegations. Even where the sentence ultimately imposed is far below the maximum, the increased ceiling can affect the tone and trajectory of the case.
For accused persons, this makes early legal analysis especially important. The same factual allegations may carry different consequences depending on the offence charged, the Crown’s election, the available defences, the strength of the evidence, and the sentencing range that applies.
New Offences for Digital and Online Conduct
Several Bill C-16 reforms respond to online conduct and digital forms of harm. The legislation creates offences related to threatening to distribute child sexual abuse and exploitation material, threatening to distribute non-consensual intimate images, and distributing bestiality depictions. It also refers to sexual deepfakes in the context of non-consensual intimate images.
These changes reflect the growing role of phones, social media, messaging platforms, cloud storage, and artificial intelligence in criminal investigations. Evidence may include screenshots, metadata, chat histories, deleted messages, device extractions, account records, and cross-platform communications.
From a defence perspective, digital evidence requires careful review. Issues may include authorship, identity, context, consent, timing, device access, third-party use, police search powers, production orders, and the reliability of copied or extracted data.
Longer Data Preservation and Investigation Timelines
Bill C-16 also strengthens investigative tools. Internet service providers may be required to preserve data for 365 days instead of 21 days, and the limitation period for prosecuting providers that fail to meet mandatory reporting requirements is extended from two years to five years.
These changes may affect how online investigations unfold. Older digital records may become more accessible to investigators, potentially assisting with account, device, location, and communication evidence.
However, data preservation does not remove the need for lawful access, proper procedure, and reliable interpretation. Defence review may still examine how data was obtained, what judicial authorizations were used, and whether the evidence proves what the Crown alleges.
Youth Recruitment Into Criminal Activity
Bill C-16 creates a new offence for recruiting youth into criminal activity, with a maximum penalty of five years on indictment. This may arise in cases involving gangs, drug trafficking, fraud, theft, weapons allegations, or online recruitment.
Key issues may include what counts as recruitment, whether the accused intended to involve the young person in crime, what the young person understood, and whether the alleged conduct crossed the line from communication or association into criminal recruitment.
In Ontario criminal courts, youth-related allegations can carry serious reputational, bail, and sentencing consequences, even where the allegations are contested.
Defence Strategy May Need to Begin Earlier
Because Bill C-16 affects penalties, offences, and investigative tools, the defence strategy may need to begin as early as possible. The initial charge may not be the only possible charge, Crown election may affect sentencing exposure, and disclosure may include complex digital evidence.
Early steps may include reviewing the wording of the charge, identifying whether a mandatory minimum applies, assessing Crown election, examining search and seizure issues, requesting complete digital disclosure, reviewing bail conditions, and considering whether Charter applications may be available.
Depending on the case, the defence may focus on identity, intent, credibility, reliability, reasonable doubt, resolution, charge selection, sentencing exposure, or the application of the new discretion mechanism.
Understanding a Changing Sentencing Landscape in Canada
Bill C-16 reflects a broader shift toward tougher criminal law responses involving sexual violence, online exploitation, intimate partner violence, and youth protection. For accused persons in Ontario, this may increase the stakes in cases falling within the new framework.
Sentencing remains individualized. Courts still consider the offence, the offender’s circumstances, aggravating and mitigating factors, rehabilitation, deterrence, denunciation, proportionality, and applicable Criminal Code provisions.
Accused persons should understand the specific charge, applicable sentencing range, Crown position, and available defences. The implications of Bill C-16 will continue to develop as courts apply the new provisions, but the reforms already mark a significant shift in Canadian criminal law and Ontario criminal defence strategy.
Barrison & Manitius: Providing Top-Tier Criminal Defence Advocacy in Oshawa and Across Durham Region
If you are facing criminal charges, the sentencing and defence implications of Bill C-16 may require careful legal analysis from the earliest stage of the case. The skilled criminal defence lawyers of Barrison & Manitius can help review your charges, assess disclosure, examine digital evidence, address bail conditions, consider Charter issues, and respond to potential mandatory minimum penalties.
Contact us online or call 905-404-1947 to discuss criminal defence representation for charges involving sexual offences, online allegations, intimate images, youth-related offences, or other Criminal Code charges.