Senate, a senator
Follow-up: a Senate public bill on section 233; Justice Canada has closed access to its analysis.
The letter ·
Senate public bill on section 233 of the Criminal Code - the Department of Justice has closed access to its own analysis
Hello,
On 29 August 2026 I asked this office to introduce a Senate public bill on section 233 of the Criminal Code. There has been no answer in 24 days. 3 facts have arrived since.
A federal body already recommended this repeal. The Law Reform Commission of Canada said so in Homicide, Working Paper 33, 1984, at 76 to 77. The medical evidence, it found, no longer justifies denying the same treatment to fathers acting under related stresses. Parliament has not acted on it in 42 years.
The Department of Justice has closed access to its own analysis of the provision. I asked it for any Charter Statement or legal risk assessment on section 233 and section 28. On 15 September 2026 the Department refused to waive the fee of 5 dollars. It gave no reasons and it opened no file. 6 days later it cited its annual report to Parliament in place of the delegation order made under section 73. The refusal is before the Information Commissioner under paragraphs 30 (1) (b) and 30 (1) (f). The department that would defend section 233 in court has put its own analysis of it behind a fee.
The difference in outcomes is measured from Statistics Canada Table 35-10-0030-01, adult criminal court, 2021/2022 and 2022/2023 combined. Among offence categories with at least 100 female guilty cases, men receive the higher custody rate in 46 of 47. At a threshold of 200 cases, it is 40 of 40. Only custody diverges: conditional sentences differ by 0.1 percentage points, probation by 0.9, and fines go more often to women.
Section 28 of the Charter applies its rights equally to male and female persons, over every other section of the Charter. Section 233 says that only a female person can commit infanticide. It caps the sentence at 5 years. A father in the same circumstances is tried for murder and faces life.
The bill is drafted in 2 versions and I take no position on which is chosen. Version A repeals section 233. Version B extends it to any person with care of the child. The one outcome I ask the Senate to reject is the third, which is to leave section 233 as it stands.
The file is published and can be cited without me: https://www.dzyuban.com/legal/bills/equality-in-sentencing/
Introduce the bill. If you decline, state the reason in writing by 2 October 2026. That answer goes to the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, which already holds my written testimony of 29 August 2026, and onto the published record.
Respectfully,
Danilo Dzyuban
No answer by 2 Oct