Canada’s hate crime laws are changing. With the passage of the Combatting Hate Act, also known as Bill C-9, the Criminal Code now includes stronger measures addressing hate-motivated crime, intimidation, obstruction, and the public display of certain hate or terrorism symbols.
For criminal law, these changes are significant. They do not simply add new offences. They may also affect how police investigate certain incidents, how Crown prosecutors frame allegations, how bail conditions are proposed, how evidence is assessed, and how sentencing positions are advanced.
For accused persons, the changes may raise important questions about intention, context, identity-based motivation, freedom of expression, peaceful protest, religious expression, and the boundary between offensive conduct and criminal conduct.
What Changed Under the Combatting Hate Act?
Bill C-9 received Royal Assent on June 18, 2026, with the new Criminal Code provisions scheduled to come into force on July 18, 2026. The legislation was introduced in response to concerns about rising hate-related incidents across Canada, including incidents affecting places of worship, schools, community centres, and other community spaces.
The amendments make several major changes. They create new offences for intimidation and obstruction connected to access to certain religious and cultural places. They also create a specific hate crime offence where a federal offence is motivated by hatred based on listed grounds.
The legislation further adds a new hate propaganda offence involving the public display of certain hate or terrorism symbols, defines “hatred” in the Criminal Code, and repeals the former “good faith religious opinion” defence for certain hate propaganda offences.
New Intimidation and Obstruction Offences
One major feature of the new law is the protection of access to certain community spaces. The intimidation offence addresses conduct intended to make someone afraid in order to prevent them from accessing places such as religious institutions, cultural institutions, schools, community centres, seniors’ residences, and other places primarily used by an identifiable group.
The obstruction offence addresses intentional interference with lawful access to those places. This may include allegations involving blocked entrances, roads, driveways, or other access points.
For criminal defence law, the details of the alleged conduct will matter. The Crown may need to prove not only what happened, but also the required intention. In an intimidation allegation, the issue may include whether the accused intended to make someone afraid for the purpose of preventing access. In an obstruction allegation, the issue may include whether the accused intentionally interfered with lawful access.
The Role of Context in Access-Related Allegations
These new offences may arise in factually complicated settings. Allegations may involve protests, counter-protests, emotionally charged public events, religious services, school activities, community gatherings, or disputes near shared public spaces.
Context may become central to the analysis. A defence assessment may consider where the incident occurred, whether the location falls within the protected categories, who was present, what access was allegedly affected, what words or actions are alleged, and whether the evidence supports the required mental element.
The legislation states that peaceful protest, political advocacy, religious teaching, opinions, disagreement, and criticism are not criminalized by the Act. However, in a criminal case, the legal issue may be how the specific facts are characterized. That distinction may be important where expressive activity and alleged intimidation or obstruction overlap.
A New Specific Hate Crime Offence
Another major change is the creation of a specific hate crime offence. Under the new framework, a person who commits a federal offence motivated by hatred based on listed grounds may face prosecution under the hate crime provision.
This is different from treating hate motivation only as an aggravating factor at sentencing. Previously, hate motivation was often addressed after conviction, when the Court considered whether bias, prejudice, or hate should increase the seriousness of the sentence. The new offence may bring hate motivation into the liability stage of the case.
That change may affect how charges are laid and prosecuted. A criminal case may now involve both the underlying alleged offence and the alleged hate motivation. For example, where the underlying allegation is threats, mischief, assault, harassment, or another federal offence, the Crown may seek to prove that the conduct was motivated by hatred connected to a protected ground.
Proving Hate Motivation
The new hate crime offence may create evidentiary disputes about motivation. In criminal law, motive is not always an essential element of an offence. Under this new structure, however, hate motivation may become central to the Crown’s case.
Evidence may include words allegedly spoken, online activity, symbols, clothing, timing, location, target selection, prior statements, group affiliations, or surrounding circumstances. Defence analysis may focus on whether the evidence proves the required connection between the alleged offence and hatred beyond a reasonable doubt.
This may raise difficult issues. A person may say something offensive, insulting, angry, political, religious, or provocative without necessarily meeting the Criminal Code threshold for hatred. The new statutory definition of hatred may therefore be important in distinguishing criminal hatred from other forms of expression or conflict.
The New Definition of “Hatred”
Bill C-9 adds a Criminal Code definition of “hatred.” The definition reflects Supreme Court of Canada language, describing hatred as an emotion of an intense and extreme nature associated with vilification and detestation.
The legislation also clarifies that hatred does not include conduct that solely humiliates, discredits, hurts, or offends. This distinction may become important in criminal defence cases because many allegations may involve language or conduct that is upsetting, hostile, or offensive, but the legal question is whether it reaches the criminal standard.
For defence counsel, this definition may shape how evidence is analyzed. It may also affect arguments about whether the Crown has proven hatred, rather than anger, personal hostility, political disagreement, crude language, or offensive conduct that does not meet the statutory threshold.
Public Display of Certain Hate or Terrorism Symbols
The new law also creates a hate propaganda offence involving the public display of certain hate or terrorism symbols where the person wilfully promotes hatred against an identifiable group. The listed symbols include symbols principally used by or associated with listed terrorist entities, the Nazi Hakenkreuz, the Nazi double-sig rune, and a noose.
The offence does not capture every public display of a listed symbol. The Crown must still prove the required mental element, including wilful promotion of hatred against an identifiable group. Public display for legitimate purposes, such as educational, artistic, or journalistic purposes, is not captured by the offence.
In criminal defence matters, this may lead to close attention to purpose, context, audience, medium, and intent. A symbol displayed in a documentary, school presentation, museum setting, news report, art project, protest sign, online post, or confrontation may raise very different legal questions depending on the surrounding facts.
Repeal of the “Good Faith Religious Opinion” Defence
The Act repeals the former “good faith religious opinion” defence that applied to certain hate propaganda offences. That defence previously addressed statements made in good faith on a religious subject or based on a religious text.
The repeal does not mean religious expression is automatically criminalized. The Justice Canada backgrounder states that religious teaching, sermons, scriptures, and good faith religious expression are not captured unless the high legal threshold for hate propaganda is met.
For criminal defence law, this change may still be important. Cases involving religious expression may now focus more directly on the elements of the offence, the required intention, the statutory definition of hatred, the scope of Charter-protected expression and religion, and whether the evidence proves wilful promotion of hatred.
Charter Issues May Become More Prominent
Hate crime and hate propaganda cases often involve Charter considerations. The new provisions may generate arguments about freedom of expression, freedom of religion, peaceful assembly, overbreadth, vagueness, search and seizure, disclosure, and trial fairness, depending on the facts.
The legislation states that it does not ban peaceful protest, political advocacy, criticism, disagreement, or religious teaching. However, criminal proceedings require the Court to apply the law to specific evidence. That may include deciding whether the alleged conduct crossed the line from protected expression into criminal conduct.
Charter issues may also arise in investigations. If police rely on digital evidence, online posts, private messages, device searches, surveillance, or social media history, questions may arise about how that evidence was obtained and whether it is admissible.
Bail, Conditions, and Pre-Trial Consequences
The new hate crime framework may also affect the early stages of a criminal case. Where an allegation involves a place of worship, school, community centre, or identifiable group, Crown positions on release may include proposed no-contact orders, geographic restrictions, internet conditions, protest-related limits, or restrictions on attending certain locations.
For an accused person, bail conditions can have immediate practical consequences. Conditions may affect work, school, worship, family responsibilities, internet use, community activities, and movement within Toronto or the GTA.
Defence considerations may include whether proposed conditions are necessary, proportionate, clearly worded, and connected to the allegations. Overly broad or unclear conditions may create risk for future breach allegations.
Sentencing Implications
The new hate crime offence includes an escalating penalty structure, which may increase maximum penalties where the underlying federal offence is prosecuted as hate-motivated. The seriousness of the underlying conduct, the alleged motivation, the impact on victims and communities, and the accused person’s circumstances may all be relevant at sentencing.
Even where a person is not charged under the new hate crime offence, hate motivation may still arise as an aggravating factor under sentencing principles. This means hate-related evidence may continue to matter even outside the new offence structure.
For defence law, sentencing advocacy may involve careful attention to the evidentiary record, the degree of responsibility, the connection between the offence and alleged hatred, rehabilitation, denunciation, deterrence, collateral consequences, and proportionality.
Why These Changes Matter in Toronto Criminal Cases
Toronto and the GTA are home to many religious, cultural, racial, ethnic, and 2SLGBTQIA+ communities. Allegations involving hate-motivated conduct may arise in neighbourhoods, schools, campuses, workplaces, transit settings, community centres, places of worship, demonstrations, and online spaces.
The new Criminal Code provisions may therefore become relevant in a wide range of Toronto criminal cases. They may affect allegations involving mischief, threats, assault, harassment, online conduct, protest activity, symbolic expression, and access to community spaces.
For accused persons, the stakes may be significant. A hate-related allegation can affect the charge, the Crown’s theory of the case, bail conditions, disclosure, reputation, employment, immigration status, travel, family relationships, and sentencing exposure. Each case will depend on its own facts, evidence, and legal issues.
Key Takeaway for Criminal Defence Law
Canada’s new hate crime laws create a more detailed Criminal Code framework for hate-motivated offences, intimidation, obstruction, and public display of certain symbols. At the same time, the legislation preserves high legal thresholds and recognizes that peaceful protest, religious expression, political advocacy, criticism, disagreement, and offensive expression are not automatically criminal.
The implications for criminal defence law are practical and substantial. These cases may turn on intent, context, statutory interpretation, Charter protections, digital evidence, disclosure, admissibility, and whether the Crown can prove the required elements beyond a reasonable doubt.
As the new provisions are applied by police, prosecutors, and courts, criminal defence cases involving hate-related allegations may require careful attention to both the expanded Criminal Code framework and the constitutional protections that continue to shape Canadian criminal law.
Toronto Criminal Defence Lawyers for Hate Crime and Propaganda Allegations
Facing a hate crime charge, hate propaganda allegation, intimidation allegation, obstruction allegation, or criminal charge involving an alleged hate motivation in Toronto or the GTA can be complex and stressful. Hicks Adams assists clients with criminal defence matters involving Criminal Code charges, Charter and Constitutional rights, bail hearings, disclosure review, trial preparation, and sentencing advocacy. To discuss a criminal charge in Toronto, Scarborough, North York, Etobicoke, Mississauga, Brampton, Vaughan, Markham, or elsewhere in the Greater Toronto Area, contact Hicks Adams at 416-975-1700 or visit our contact page to arrange a confidential consultation with a Toronto criminal defence lawyer.
