The Coalition for Prisoners’ Rights is a group of community organizations, legal professionals, legal organizations, and community members standing in opposition to Bill C-14. The Coalition is concerned about the deplorable conditions faced by incarcerated people across jails in Canada, believes in the dignity and human rights of incarcerated people, and emphasizes that more punishment, policing, and prisons are not the solution to achieve social safety for all, especially society’s most vulnerable and marginalized communities.
Coalition Members Include:
- Law Union of Ontario – Policing Committee
- Just Peace Advocates/Mouvement Pour Une Paix Juste
- Legal Clinic at Lincoln Alexander School of Law at TMU
- The Chinese and Southeast Asian Legal Clinic
- MCW Law
- The Canadian BDS Coalition and International BDS Allies
- Elizabeth Fry Society of Northeastern Ontario
- Osgoode Hall Law Union
- Willowdale Community Legal Services
- South Asian Legal Clinic of Ontario (SALCO)
- East Coast Prison Justice Society
Summary
The Coalition for Prisoners’ Rights strongly condemns the Carney government’s proposed bail reforms as being harsh, punitive, counterproductive, and unsupported by the evidence. As part of this brief, please also see the joint submission of the Council of Elizabeth Fry Societies of Ontario opposing the bill from an abolitionist and decarceral perspective, which the Coalition also adopts.
We strongly condemn the changes to our bail system proposed by the Carney government in Bill C-14, introduced on October 23, 2025. The Coalition does not support eliminating the ladder principle or expanding reverse onus. We urge the government to withdraw Bill C-14, and to re-focus on evidence-based, balanced reforms that advance both safety and equity for all—not measures driven by uninformed public perceptions.
In the Coalition’s view, Bill C-14 as currently drafted will exacerbate an already dysfunctional bail system; add to the overcrowding and inhumane conditions in provincial remand centres; create more hardship for the poor, Indigenous, Black, and other racialized minorities who disproportionately fill our jails; and increase the likelihood of unjust convictions without in any way materially enhancing public safety, reducing crime, improving policing or addressing the underlying causes of crime.
The Committee should require and consider a full Gender-based Analysis Plus (GBA+ analysis) of Bill C-14, including its intersectional impacts on Indigenous peoples, Black people, other racialized communities, survivors of gender-based violence, and other marginalized groups to ensure the proposed changes do not deepen inequities or undermine community safety.
If Bill C-14 proceeds, the government must undertake meaningful, trauma-informed consultation, including with organizations and people with expertise in anti-racism and gender-based violence, before the bill moves to the next stage. However, we underscore that the Coalition’s position is that this bill should not be passed at all because of its fundamentally unconstitutional nature and inequitable impacts.
Overview
Bill C-14’s removal of the ladder principle for reverse-onus cases, combined with the proposed expansion of reverse onus, will predictably deepen the over-capture of Black, Indigenous, and other racialized people, particularly people living in poverty, because it makes release hinge on presenting a “credible” bail plan that many simply cannot put together. For people who are unhoused or precariously housed, who work unstable hours, who have limited English/French, or who lack a safe and willing surety (including because of stigma, fear of police, poverty, or immigration-related anxiety in the family), the effect is not a more tailored assessment of risk, but a structural tilt toward detention.
Parliament should reject Bill C-14 as drafted and focus instead on measures proven to improve safety: timely and fair bail hearings that prioritize release as the norm and detention as the exception; properly resourced community supports; and interventions that address the social and economic conditions that drive harm, including supports for survivors of abuse who themselves become criminalized.
Impact of Onerous Bail Conditions
The overall spirit of Bill C-14’s is to make it harder for people to be released on bail, under the façade of public safety. This is being done at a time where the public is being made more and more aware en masse about the horrifying realities of Canada’s provincial institutions. One example is the events of extreme torture and abuse in December 2023 that was exposed at Maplehurst Correctional Complex in Milton, Ontario.
The increased burden on an accused to justify his or her release will result in more unnecessary conditions on bail and a concomitant increase in bail-related charges. Currently in Ontario, over 20% of all criminal charges relate to breaches of bail conditions.1 There has been a well-documented increase in requirements for surety and more stringent release conditions, including requirements to live with residential surety, house arrests and curfews, and ankle bracelet monitors. The proposed changes will make these onerous conditions more commonplace without any ascertainable benefit to public safety.
The imposition of onerous bail conditions often sets up Black, low-income and other vulnerable individuals for failure to comply.2 Conditions such as residency requirements for those experiencing homelessness, abstinence conditions for individuals with substance use issues, or no-contact orders between family members are routinely imposed on people lacking stable housing or adequate community supports.3 These conditions can lead to a cycle of breach charges and increasingly restrictive bail terms or pre-trial detention.4
Creating heightened barriers for release on bail will inevitably subject more people to Charter violations such as what happened at Maplehurst Correctional Complex in December 2023. Justice Conlan outlines in detail the violation of individuals’ section 7, 8, and 12 Charter rights during a mass strip search and abuse campaign by prison employees and how this amounted to torture in R v Whitlock.5
Justice Conlan also outlines the systemic problems that were revealed, including negligent and intentional destruction of evidence, prison employee witnesses lying in court, collusion among prison employee witnesses, and an attempted coverup by the Ministry. This event illustrates the way in which those being held pre-trial are not simply detained but subjected to abuse, torture, and coverups by those in authority to avoid accountability. Bill C-14 will increase the number of people subjected to these types of inhumane conditions where fundamental Charter rights are disregarded.
Contrary to what the public has been led to believe, not all accused are guilty. In 2024 in Ontario, 57% of all criminal cases ultimately were withdrawn or stayed.6 The case of Umar Zameer, whose release on bail for a charge of first degree murder in the death of Detective Constable Jeffrey Northrop was harshly condemned by the Chief of the Toronto Police, the then-Mayor of Toronto, and the Premier of Ontario, is a case in point. He was acquitted after trial with an apology from the trial judge for everything he had gone through.
Principle of Restraint, Ladder Principle and the Reverse Onus Test
The principle of restraint is a common law principle that is outlined in the Criminal Code and is mandated by the Supreme Court of Canada. The proposed amendments direct police and courts on how to apply this principle. In the Criminal Code, the “ladder principle” requires courts to consider the least restrictive form of release first. Bill C-14 proposes that the ladder principle will not apply to accused persons who are subject to a reverse onus. This takes away the protection that is currently in place.
The ladder principle requires that judges consider the least restrictive form of release first before moving to more onerous bail conditions. Bill C-14 narrows its application.
As a result of this bill, the accused will face a two-pronged attack: reverse onus and exclusion from the ladder principle.
Reverse Onus Principles Punish Innocent Community Members
The proposed changes will violate constitutional rights to reasonable bail by increasing the number of reverse onus offences.7 Reverse onus places the burden on an accused person to demonstrate the reasons for their release, instead of properly shouldering this burden on the state.8 This creates even further compounding violence against unhoused, racialized, and disabled populations, who are ultimately punished while legally innocent. Moreover, in addition to expanding the reverse onus, the bill directs courts to closely scrutinize the bail plan of the accused, who would be required to clearly demonstrate that their plan is reliable and credible, in order to be released on bail.
These provisions shift the burden from the Crown to the accused to demonstrate why they should be released, creating a presumption of detention. While the Supreme Court of Canada has upheld some reverse onus provisions in narrow circumstances,9 concerns exist that new provisions may not meet constitutional standards.10
Expanded reverse onus provisions may fail the “narrow set of circumstances” test articulated in Pearson and R. v. Morales.11 The Supreme Court in Morales clarified that “just cause” to deny bail requires that denial occur only in a narrow set of circumstances and be necessary to promote the proper functioning of the bail system, not for extraneous purposes.12 Morales struck down the “public interest” component of a bail provision for being vague and imprecise, authorizing a denial of bail without just cause. Similarly, R. v. Hall noted that any bail provision conferring an open-ended judicial discretion to refuse bail is unconstitutional. If new reverse onus provisions are overly broad or not sufficiently tailored, they risk being deemed unconstitutional for failing to meet this “just cause” standard.
Expanding reverse onus may also violate or strain constitutional rights under section 11(e) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms concerning the presumption of innocence and reasonable bail.
In addition to dangerously narrowing constitutional principles, the social consequences of this restriction will be felt disproportionately. Increased burden on the accused can lead to more pretrial detention, overcrowding, and strain on detention facilities, which disproportionately affect marginalized groups. Further, increased denial of bail will result in the discontinuation of social assistance benefits for those detained. For many, this will lead to unpaid rent and terminated tenancies. When people are released, they have no housing to return to, and face barriers to accessing social housing.
In sum, the denial of access to bail reverses the presumption of innocence, incentivizes pleas of guilty just to get out of jail, makes it more difficult for lawyers to access their clients, and increases the likelihood of unjust convictions. As Justice Iacobucci noted in R. v. Hall, 2002 SCC 64, where an accused is denied access to bail, they are “…rendered more likely to plead guilty, and, as a result, to waive the various safeguards against unjust conviction that the system provides.”
Impact of Removing the Ladder Principle
The “ladder principle”, reaffirmed in R. v. Antic, mandates that courts impose the least onerous form of release unless the Crown demonstrates why a more restrictive form is necessary.13 This principle is premised on restraint, requiring each rung of the ladder to be considered and rejected before moving to a more restrictive option.14 Reverse onus provisions, by shifting the burden to the accused to justify release, can invert this principle, potentially leading to more onerous conditions than necessary and placing an unconstitutional burden on the accused,. The right to reasonable bail and the presumption of innocence require that pre-trial detention be the exception, not the rule, and release is favored at the earliest reasonable opportunity on the least onerous grounds.15
The presumption of innocence is a Charter protected right. Narrowing the ladder principle unduly restricts Charter rights. Without the ladder principle, courts may be inclined to impose more restrictive bail, leading to increases in pre-trial detentions, disproportionately affecting racialized and marginalized groups by increasing harsher surveillance tactics, increasing stringent bail conditions, exacerbating systemic biases, and exacerbating the barriers that members of socially marginalized groups face when trying to avoid further criminalization from various bail conditions.
Specific Impacts on Populations
As many groups have accurately stated, the brunt of such a bill will fall primarily on our Black, Indigenous, poor, street-affiliated, immigrant, etc. community members. Many of these people will also be victims of crime themselves. Many people will lose their jobs and families in custody waiting for their trial. Some will lose their lives. Some will be found not guilty at the end of this process with nothing to show for the time they lost in jail and the trauma they received during their bid. Again, many will falsely plead guilty just to escape the horrors of custody.
Below we highlight some of additional impacts on particular vulnerable communities:
Impact on Racialized Communities:
- Risk of increased pretrial detention rates due to the burden shifting onto the accused to prove why they should be released, contributing to systemic overrepresentation and over-incarceration of Black, Indigenous, and other racialized groups.
- Black people are significantly overrepresented in the Canadian justice system. Black adults constitute 5% of the Canadian population but account for 30% of federal inmates.16 This mass incarceration of Black individuals is egregious and long-standing.17 Anti-Black racism affects Black Canadians at every stage of the criminal justice system, from policing to pre-trial detention, sentencing, and incarceration.18 For instance, Black accused in Ontario are detained longer before trial compared to White accused.19 This is rooted in colonialism and the institution of chattel slavery that was a key feature of European and settler colonial societies.
- Indigenous peoples also face similar discrimination and violence through overincarceration, including in pretrial detention, and are also more likely to be denied bail than White accused.20 This is rooted in Canadian colonialism and the legacy of the genocidal residential school system.
- Reverse onus places a heavier burden on accused individuals who may face discrimination or lack equal access to legal resources.
- The increased reverse onus may exacerbate the cycle of disadvantage by reinforcing structural inequities behind systemic racism within the criminal justice system.
- Systemic biases are likely to be exacerbated
Impact on GBV Victims:
- Individuals convicted of crimes are often also survivors of gender-based violence. People who are incarcerated have elevated histories of sexual and/or physical victimization. Black and Indigenous women are more likely to have experienced intimate partner violence, and to face criminalization by the state.21
- Disincentivizes accused persons from contesting charges leading to more guilty pleas regardless of actual guilt.
- In some gender-based violence cases, the accused person is also a survivor of coercive control or trauma, and release planning can be complicated by poverty, housing insecurity, caregiving responsibilities, language barriers, and community stigma. Expanding reverse onus and limiting the ladder principle risks unnecessary pre-trial detention in cases where structured, community-based supports and safety planning would better manage risk and promote stability for families.
Bill C-14 Lacks an Intersectional Lens
The proposed changes are not a one size fits all solution to gender-based violence (GBV). It does not take into consideration its impact on consequences for racialized communities, nor does it apply cultural sensitivity. Victims may hesitate to report abuse or cooperate if they fear the accused will face prolonged pretrial detention. In South Asian communities, significant pressure is exerted by the families of the accused in GBV cases on the complainant to refrain from complaining to the police or make the domestic violence public. The consequences of Bill C-14 on racialized communities, women and gender-diverse people in Canada is significant and disproportionate.
Rather than further brushing criminalized people with one stroke, legislative reforms should be focused on finding ways to eliminate the violence of overincarceration that has long been enacted against Black and Indigenous peoples. Courts must adopt a critical approach to overrepresentation when evaluating bail grounds and crafting conditions.22 For instance, evidence of anti-Black racism and systemic factors should be considered, especially concerning criminal records and prior breaches.23 Over-policing of Black communities, racial profiling, and racial disparities in police discretion can contribute to an individual’s criminal record.24 Considering these factors can provide context for an accused’s record and reduce the tendency of past convictions to cast doubt on their trustworthiness for bail.25
The Proposed Changes Are Not Evidence-Based
The changes are not evidence-based and are contrary to the numerous reports, studies and statistics over the past twenty years showing an unacceptable and unwarranted increase in the numbers of accused being detained and held in remand centres awaiting trial, which disproportionately impacts poor, disabled, and racialized communities.26 Rather than aim to solve this problem, Bill C-14 will only make it worse.
These changes are driven by political expediency and an appeal to public perception – itself a product of cynical politicking, police press releases and media attention – rather than reality. Justice Minister Sean Fraser fed these misperceptions when he told reporters “I remember the last time the (Blue) Jays were in the World Series [1993], I was a kid who was playing ball hockey and riding bikes with my friends until we lost daylight. We never worried about our safety, and neither did our parents.” Despite the Minister’s undoubtedly sincere and fond memories of his childhood, the reality is that Canada’s crime rate peaked in 1995, a time of widespread public concerns about crime and safety, and has been on a steady decline ever since.27 The evidence shows that things have gotten objectively safer.
On the other hand, the Ontario government statistics paint a grim picture of how bad the current bail system is.
- The average wait for a bail hearing has risen from 4.1 days in 2015 to 6.9 in 2024, a 68% increase.28 The Toronto Regional Bail Centre set up to provide a centralized bail court for Toronto is widely acknowledged to be dysfunctional with people waiting for days for their bail hearings because no court is available.29
- The proportion of accused awaiting trial in our remand centres is over 70%.30 Overcrowding is the norm with triple- and quadruple-bunking in cells built for at most two, inmates sleeping on the floors in common areas, and repeated lockdowns due to staffing shortages, denying inmates access to fresh air, showers and programs.
There is little evidence that punitive bail regimes deter crime or enhance public safety. There is ample evidence that the effects of pre-trial detention are often devastating, particularly for the poor, the disadvantaged, and the mentally ill. Jobs and housing are lost, family connections broken, medical care missed, creating a downward spiral difficult to recover from. Bill C-14 does not address this reality; instead, it flies in the face of the well-established root causes of crime, such as poverty and lack of opportunity, particularly for Indigenous people, Black people, other racialized people, and youth.
The proposed changes will divert resources from cost-effective community supervision, mental health and drug treatment programs to the far more expensive and counterproductive correctional system. Community supervision costs on average less than 10% of the $367 per day cost to house an inmate in Ontario jails.31
Proposed Solutions Alternative to Bill C-14
All of the abovementioned negative consequences will happen under Bill C-14. We will not be safer as a society for it. We will be worse off. Maybe it will inspire us to do a Bill C-something else to make bail even harder to get. Maybe it will finally inspire us to realize these punitive measures have never worked to better society. We hope it is the latter.
Release as the Norm with Detention as the Exception
The Coalition proposes that any changes made to the bail system must comply with this fundamental tenant of bail: “Release as the norm with detention as the exception.”
The principle that release should be the norm and detention the exception is a fundamental tenet of Canada’s bail system, mandated by the Supreme Court of Canada and Section 11(e) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.32 Section 11(e) guarantees the right not to be denied reasonable bail without just cause.33 The “ladder principle” requires imposing the least onerous form of release unless the Crown demonstrates why a more restrictive form is necessary.34
Section 493.2 of the Criminal Code mandates that peace officers, justices, or judges give particular attention to the circumstances of vulnerable populations overrepresented in the justice system and disadvantaged in obtaining release, which includes Black individuals.35 This section was enacted to address the persistent problem of overrepresentation and ameliorate the pre-trial over-incarceration of vulnerable groups.36 It would lead to an error in law to impose bail conditions that result in judges not applying this section where it could influence the decision.
Furthermore, Section 515(13.1) of the Criminal Code, introduced by Bill C-48, requires justices to state on the record whether Section 493.2 applies to an accused and, if so, how their circumstances were considered [Clause 1(5)]).37 This provision is crucial for ensuring accountability and transparency in bail decisions affecting Black individuals.38
Increased Funding for Legal Aid and Community-Based Supports
Increased funding for Legal Aid Ontario and culturally competent, community-based supports is essential.39 These supports include mental health, addiction services, and affordable housing, tailored to Black communities.40 Resources should address the root causes of criminal justice involvement, such as housing instability, untreated trauma, mental health needs, and systemic discrimination, rather than relying on punitive legislation,41 and culturally competent GBV supports.
Enhanced Training for Judicial Officers
Mandatory enhanced training for justices of the peace and judges on systemic anti-Black racism and the proper application of Section 493.2 is crucial.42 This training should equip judicial officers to recognize and address the impact of anti-Black racism in bail decisions, ensuring that the unique circumstances of Black accused are appropriately considered.43
The Coalition for Prisoners’ Rights is a group of community organizations, legal professionals, legal organizations, and community members standing in opposition to Bill C-14. The Coalition is concerned about the deplorable conditions faced by incarcerated people across jails in Canada, believes in the dignity and human rights of incarcerated people, and emphasizes that more punishment, policing, and prisons are not the solution to achieve social safety for all, especially society’s most vulnerable and marginalized communities.
Special thank you to Black Legal Action Centre, MCW Law, South Asian Legal Clinic of Ontario, and Willowdale Community Legal Services for their contributions, which are included throughout this brief.
An additional thank you to the East Coast Prison Justice Society, South Asian Legal Clinic of Ontario, Willowdale Community Legal Services, the Elizabeth Fry Society of Northeastern Ontario, and Legal Clinic at Lincoln Alexander School of Law at TMU for supporting with editing of the final version of this brief.
Thank you also to the Council of Elizabeth Fry Societies for their joint submission, which can be found below on page 11 of this brief.
Signed,
Coalition for Prisoners’ Rights
Law Union of Ontario – Policing Committee
Just Peace Advocates/Mouvement Pour Une Paix Juste
Legal Clinic at Lincoln Alexander School of Law at TMU
The Chinese and Southeast Asian Legal Clinic
MCW Law
The Canadian BDS Coalition and International BDS Allies
Elizabeth Fry Society of Northeastern Ontario
Osgoode Hall Law Union
Willowdale Community Legal Services
South Asian Legal Clinic of Ontario (SALCO)
East Coast Prison Justice Society
