Has Canada’s Criminal Code Lost Its Way?

Laws have to be clear, consistent, and enforceable. Some of ours aren’t.

I am neither a lawyer nor the son of a lawyer and, thankfully, I’ve never been dragged through the justice system as a participant. But that doesn’t mean I can’t have thoughts.

My recent post on auto theft conviction rates ended with a suggestion that the size and complexity of Canada’s Criminal Code might be contributing to systemic problems with our courts – including suffocating inefficiencies. I’d like to explore that idea a bit more here.

First of all though, complexity is not the driver of most criminal behavior. You don’t need a law degree to know that you shouldn’t steal someone’s car or break his nose in a barroom brawl. And anyone with a grade three education should realize that government program fraud isn’t exactly saintly behaviour.

But overly complex laws can be responsible for some serious problems. Consider how clarity is actually a cornerstone of justice. In Canada, for instance, the Void for Vagueness Doctrine holds that a law is invalid if it’s too vague for the average person to understand. That’s because such laws fail to provide “fair notice” of what’s prohibited and clear standards for enforcement.

Similarly, if accused criminals can demonstrate that the complexity or ambiguity of the statute led them to reasonably believe their conduct was lawful, those laws might fail the necessary mens rea requirement for certain offences.

Unfortunate illustrations of this problem make appearances in some recent Liberal government legislation:

Online Harms Act (Bill C-63) fails to provide a clear definition for “online harm”. This makes it impossible for citizens to anticipate how the new Digital Safety Commission will enforce the law.
Online Streaming Act (Bill C-11) appears to require streaming services (like YouTube) to regulate user-generated content using an undefined standard.
Online News Act (Bill C-18) could affect how news is shared and accessed online, potentially influencing the availability and distribution of Canadian news.

Of those, at least C-63 and C-11 – in their current form – could expose individuals to significant criminal and civil penalties without providing clarifying details.

Here’s another example. Section 423 of the Criminal Code prohibits intimidation:

423(1) Every one is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than five years or is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction who, wrongfully and without lawful authority, for the purpose of compelling another person to abstain from doing anything that he or she has a lawful right to do, or to do anything that he or she has a lawful right to abstain from doing…blocks or obstructs a highway.

And Section 430 prohibits “mischief”, whose definition includes:

interfering with the lawful use, enjoyment, or operation of property.

Just playfully attaching a sticker to someone’s car could lead to charges even if there was no intent to cause harm (by, say, damaging the car’s paint).

The problem here is that both Sections 423 and 430 are, to put it mildly, inconsistently enforced. This is something I’ve already discussed in my Limits of Legal Protest post. Participants in recent pro-Hamas protests flagrantly blocked lawful access to roads, parks, and public buildings for weeks at a time in cities across the country. That’s a clear Section 423 and 430 violation. And yet, of the many hundreds of participants, only a handful were ever arrested and, to my knowledge, none was charged with mischief or intimidation.

Now I know exactly what you’re thinking: “Come on Clinton, what about 430(7)?”

No person commits mischief within the meaning of this section by reason only that he attends at or near or approaches a dwelling-house or place for the purpose only of obtaining or communicating information.

Weren’t those protesters just there to communicate information (“from the river to the sea…”)? Well I’m actually not sure how much meaningful communication was happening at those gatherings. Dialog didn’t seem to be their primary focus. But the legal issue wasn’t where they chose to stand, it was the fact that they actively and intentionally prevented the lawful use, enjoyment, or operation of property – both private and public.

Now, in that context, is it reasonable to prosecute any acts of mischief or intimidation anywhere in Canada? Couldn’t a person reasonably argue that he was under the informed opinion that Canadian police largely ignored such offences?

As the Criminal Code grows, its internal complexity is bound to increase along with it. Comparing the PDF version of the June 15, 2011 version of the Code (1,025 pages) to the most recent version (1,349 pages) gives us a sense of the changes that are happening in both government and society as a whole. More than 226,000 words (in both French and English) were added over that time, a 31 percent increase. Revisions included updates concerning firearms and weapons, remote proceedings, indigenous rights, organized crime and terrorism, and palliative care.

All that’s not necessarily a bad thing. But when poorly-written legislation (like C-11) makes it into the books and perfectly fine legislation (like Section 430) is enforced unevenly, then we’re asking for trouble. A competent government should be able to do better than that.

Refer a friend

Up Next

They Would Call Me a “Denier” – Let Me Explain what I Believe about Residential Schools in Canada

Don't Miss

Honest discussion about taxes must include bill Canadian families pay

Todayville

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

Strongest hurricane in 174 years makes landfall in Jamaica

Opinion / 8 hours ago

British Columbians protest Trump while Eby brings their province to its knees

Business / 8 hours ago

Canada has given $109 million to Communist China for ‘sustainable development’ since 2015

Crime

Suspect caught trying to flee France after $100 million Louvre jewel robbery

Published on October 28, 2025

Todayville

MxM News

French authorities have arrested two men accused of involvement in the recent heist at the Louvre Museum that stunned Paris last week. One of the suspects was caught Saturday night at Charles de Gaulle Airport as he tried to board a flight to Algeria, French outlet Le Parisien reported. Both men, described as being in their 30s and from Seine-Saint-Denis — a crime-ridden suburb north of Paris — were taken into custody on charges of “organized gang robbery” and “conspiracy to commit a crime.” Two other members of the crew remain on the run.

Authorities say the arrests followed a tip that one suspect was attempting to flee the country. Police intercepted him at the airport, while a second man was tracked down hours later in Paris. Investigators have yet to recover any of the stolen Crown Jewels. The four-man gang — clad in yellow vests and motorcycle helmets — used a cherry picker to scale the walls of the Louvre’s Apollo Gallery before smashing glass displays with chainsaws in front of stunned onlookers. The entire operation reportedly took less than four minutes.

The thieves made off with eight pieces from France’s historic Crown Jewels collection, including a sapphire diadem, necklace, and earring linked to 19th-century Queens Marie-Amélie and Hortense. Among the most valuable items taken were Empress Eugénie’s diamond diadem and a massive diamond-and-emerald corsage brooch. One piece — Eugénie’s emerald-set imperial crown with over 1,300 diamonds — was later found outside the museum, damaged but recoverable. The crew abandoned and torched the cherry picker before escaping on scooters.

Forensic teams have since gathered more than 150 DNA, fingerprint, and hair samples from the scene and other sites across Paris. One key piece of evidence — hair found in a motorcycle helmet — is believed to belong to the first thief who entered the museum. Investigators suspect the men were experienced criminals hired to carry out the robbery for a private buyer.

The suspects are being held at Paris police headquarters, where they can be detained for up to 96 hours before charges are formally filed. Interior Minister Laurent Nuñez praised police for their swift action, writing on X: “I extend my warmest congratulations to the investigators who have worked tirelessly as I requested and who have always had my full confidence… We keep going!!”

In the wake of the heist, France’s government has ramped up security at major cultural sites. The remaining Crown Jewels have been moved to an ultra-secure vault at the Bank of France. A forthcoming audit by France’s Court of Auditors reportedly found that the Louvre’s video surveillance systems were woefully outdated — with security spending in 2024 lower than two decades earlier.

Paris prosecutors, however, criticized the media for leaking details about the arrests. “This revelation can only hinder the investigative efforts of the 100 or so mobilised investigators… It is too early to provide any specific details,” said prosecutor Laure Beccuau.

“French-crown-jewels” byMichael Reeve licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0 DEED.

Alberta

Coutts border officers seize 77 KG of cocaine in commercial truck entering Canada – Street value of $7 Million

Published on October 27, 2025

Todayville

News release from RCMP Federal Policing Northwest Region

Calgary resident charged with attempted drug importation

Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) officers at the Coutts port of entry found nearly 77 kg of cocaine with an estimated street value of $7 million during a secondary examination of a commercial truck seeking entry into Canada from the United States. The CBSA arrested the driver, a resident of Calgary.

The Integrated Border Enforcement Team in Alberta, a joint force operation between the RCMP Federal Policing Northwest Region, CBSA and Calgary Police Service, was notified and a criminal investigation was initiated into the individual.

Surj Singh Salaria (28), a resident of Calgary, was arrested and charged with:

Importation of a controlled substance contrary to section 6(1) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act;

Possession of a controlled substance for the purpose of trafficking contrary to section 5(2) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act; and,
Attempting to export goods that are prohibited, controlled or regulated contrary to section 160 of the Customs Act.

Salaria is scheduled to appear in Lethbridge Provincial Court on Oct. 27, 2025.

“The CBSA remains vigilant in preventing dangerous drugs from reaching our communities. This significant seizure shows CBSA’s detection capabilities and the important role our officers play to stop drug trafficking. We are committed to securing and protecting the border alongside our law enforcement partners.”

Janalee Bell-Boychuk, Regional Director General, Prairie Region, Canada Border Services Agency

“Through coordinated efforts between law enforcement agencies, a substantial quantity of cocaine was seized before it could reach communities across Alberta. This investigation reinforces the value of a secure border and the vital role that collaboration and intelligence-sharing play in safeguarding the public from the harms of illegal drug trafficking.”

Supt. Sean Boser, Officer in Charge of Federal Serious and Organized Crime and Border Integrity – Alberta, RCMP Federal Policing Northwest Region

“This investigation highlights the strength of our collaborative efforts through the Integrated Border Enforcement Team. By working together with our law enforcement partners, we are able to disrupt the flow of illegal drugs and protect our communities from the violence and harm associated with organized crime.”

Acting Supt. Jeff Pennoyer, CPS, Criminal Operations & Intelligence Division

IBET’s mandate is to enhance border integrity and security along the shared border, between designated ports of entry, by identifying, investigating and interdicting persons, organizations and goods that are involved in criminal activities.