Proposed federal amendments to the sex registry fall short

By LegalMatters Staff • At the end of April the federal government proposed changes to the National Sex Offender Registry. The modifications, contained in Bill S-12, are in response to a 2022 Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) decision that found two Criminal Code provisions relating to the registry were inconsistent with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The two provisions are the automatic registration of people convicted of designated sexual offences and the mandatory lifetime registration for those convicted of more than one sexual offence in the same prosecution.

The SCC gave Parliament one year to respond. The government is now suggesting that serious child sexual offenders and repeat sexual offenders would be registered automatically. Other sexual offenders will also be included in the registry unless they can demonstrate that they pose no risk to the community.

“I believe the Supreme Court wanted the government to back away from the idea that anyone convicted of sexual assault would automatically be added to the registry,” says Ottawa criminal lawyer Céline Dostaler. “The Liberals partially embraced that idea, though the onus is on the offender to ‘demonstrate that they pose no risk to the community.’”

Dostaler says she agrees with the Supreme Court’s determination that people who have committed minor sexual offences do not need to be included in the registry.

“Keep in mind that the charge of sexual assault includes everything from touching a complainant’s buttocks over clothing to prolonged, violent assaults,” she says.

“What concerns me is that this new bill seems to be opening the door to changes that will affect the privacy of convicted sex offenders who have paid for their crimes,” Dostaler says.

For example, she says the bill will “require judges to ask if victims want to receive ongoing information about their case after sentencing, and ensure that their wishes, if known, are entered into the record of the proceedings.”

“If victims are permitted to ‘receive ongoing information about their case after sentencing,’ will that include the address of the offender who has served their time?” Dostaler asks. “These people have fulfilled the rehabilitative and punitive requirements our judicial system deemed necessary. They deserve a chance to rebuild their lives and are entitled to the privacy we all enjoy.

“The Supreme Court continually states that we must consider the rights of victims. But what about the rights of the rehabilitated offender?” she adds.