Canada’s New Bail Rules for Strangulation and Choking 2026

What Changed for Strangulation and Choking Cases in 2026?

The Bail and Sentencing Reform Act has altered various provisions of the Criminal Code relating to bail. The enactment came into effect on June 15, 2026, while the pertinent bail reforms became effective from July 15, 2026.

The first amendment relates to certain cases of assaults or sexual assaults that involve choking, suffocation, or strangulation of the complainant by the accused person.

According to s.515(6) of the Criminal Code as amended, a reverse-onus situation has been introduced for specific offences. The provision would apply in situations when the accused is charged with any relevant offence under ss.266 to 268 or ss.271 to 273 and charging is made with choking, suffocation, or strangulation in connection with the offence.

This represents an important change in the bail process. However, it does not affect the burden of proof in the trial.

What Does Section 515(6)(a)(ix) Mean?

Section 515(6)(a)(ix) identifies certain assault charges and sexual assault charges involving alleged choking, suffocation, or strangulation as a reverse-onus category.

The listed Criminal Code provisions are:

• section 266 — assault;
• section 267 — assault with a weapon or causing bodily harm;
• section 268 — aggravated assault;
• section 271 — sexual assault;
• section 272 — sexual assault with a weapon, threats to a third party, causing bodily harm, or other listed circumstances; and
• section 273 — aggravated sexual assault.

The reverse-onus bail does not apply to every individual that has been charged with assault. Both the offence being charged and the conduct being alleged are relevant.

For instance, this new reverse-onus provision applies to situations where there has been an allegation of choking, suffocation, or strangulation in connection with any of the offences set out in the list.

This can be analyzed by a criminal defense lawyer in Calgary.

Does the New Rule Mean the Accused Is Presumed Guilty?

Not necessarily. A reverse onus bail hearing does not decide the question of whether or not the accused has committed the crime he is charged with.

There are three different things which need to be separated from each other.

First of all, there is the allegation itself, which tells us what the police or the prosecution claim was done.

Then comes the decision of the bail itself, whether the accused has to stay behind bars until the conclusion of the criminal proceeding and whether some restrictions need to be imposed.

Finally, there is the question of guilt or innocence itself, once the case goes for trial.

In the bail hearing itself, the accused does not have to prove that he is innocent.

Where section 515(6) of the Criminal Code applies, the accused has to explain why detention is not warranted.

Is Strangulation Automatically a Separate Criminal Offence?

Not simply because strangulation is alleged.

Choking, suffocation, or strangulation may arise in various situations under the Criminal Code. The particular section will depend on the alleged facts and elements of the crime.

For instance, according to section 267(c), an individual commits the offense under section 267 where he or she chokes, suffocates, or strangles the complainant during an assault.

It does not necessarily imply that every case that involves choking has to be categorized as aggravated assault.

Aggravated assault under section 268 has its own test and applies where the alleged assault wounds, maims, disfigures, or endangers the life of the complainant.

Section 272, on the other hand, makes reference to a particular offense where choking, suffocation, or strangulation occurs during a sexual assault.

In addition, section 246 of the Criminal Code mentions choking or suffocation; however, it is a separate offense with different legal elements and it relates to conduct aimed at facilitating an indictable offense. It should not be viewed as a general “strangulation charge.”

For someone who faces assault charges in Calgary, the proper starting point is therefore the actual charge and allegations.

Which Assault Charges Can Trigger the New Reverse-Onus Rule?

The 2026 amendment does not create one new offence called “strangulation assault.” Instead, it changes the bail consequences that may arise when specified existing offences involve alleged choking, suffocation, or strangulation.

Section 515(6)(a)(ix) refers to offences under sections 266, 267, 268, 271, 272, and 273.

The legal details matter because these sections cover offences with different elements.

Section 266: Assault

Section 266 deals with assault generally.

An assault might include an application of force without consent, among other possible scenarios captured in the definition of assault under the Criminal Code. The type of force in question might be varied.

According to the 2026 bail amendment, an offence that qualifies under s. 266 could come within the ambit of the new onus provision if choking, suffocation, or strangulation was used in committing the offence.

The point here is that the bail provision is not restricted to a charge under s. 267(c).

The particular charge, the Crown’s position, and the alleged facts have to be considered before determining the applicable bail principles.

Section 267: Assault Involving Choking, Suffocation, or Strangulation

Section 267 applies where an accused, while committing an assault:

• carries, uses, or threatens to use a weapon or imitation weapon;
• causes bodily harm to the complainant; or
• chokes, suffocates, or strangles the complainant.

It means that choking, suffocation, and strangulation are all mentioned explicitly in s. 267(c).

But just because someone is charged with the crime outlined in section 267 does not mean that the alleged behaviour took place.

The objective of the bail hearing is totally different.

In this bail hearing, the question is whether it is appropriate for the accused to be detained pending the trial. If the new reverse onus provision is applicable, the accused should take into account the risks of s. 515.

Section 268: Aggravated Assault

Aggravated assault pursuant to s. 268 is not to be confused with an alleged strangulation offence.

S. 268 is invoked when an assault has caused wounds, maiming, disfigurement or endangerment of the complainant’s life.

That an individual was alleged to have been choked would not necessarily establish whether the elements required for aggravated assault were present.

The facts and consequences are important.

Nonetheless, s. 268 is listed as one of the offences included in s. 515(6)(a)(ix).

In such cases, where there is an applicable s. 268 charge in conjunction with choking, suffocation or strangulation during the commission of the offence, the reverse onus provision might apply.

What About Sexual Assault Charges?

The 2026 amendment will also apply to sexual assault as per sections 271 to 273.

Section 271 deals with sexual assault.

Section 272 deals with sexual assault committed under certain circumstances. Among these circumstances, there is choking, suffocating, or strangling the complainant as per section 272(1)(c.1).

Section 273 deals with aggravated sexual assault, which is characterized by wounding, maiming, disfiguring, or putting at risk the life of the complainant during the course of sexual assault.

All three sections are specifically referred to in the amended bail provision.

The focus of this article is on assault and bail provisions rather than on sexual assault law. The important aspect here is that 515(6)(a)(ix) provision includes all three provisions in relation to the particular allegation of choking, suffocating, or strangling.

Why the Exact Charge Matters

A person should not assume that every allegation involving the neck or breathing produces the same charge or the same bail issue.

The court may need to consider:

• the Criminal Code section actually charged;
• how the alleged assault is described;
• whether choking, suffocation, or strangulation is alleged;
• whether section 515(6) applies;
• whether another reverse-onus provision also applies; and
• the circumstances relevant to release or detention.

What Does Reverse Onus Mean at a Bail Hearing?

The reverse onus provision results in changing the party who should prove whether detention or release is necessary during the bail hearing.

Where an ordinary bail proceeding occurs in accordance with s. 515, the Crown has the burden to demonstrate why detention should take place or whether the less restrictive conditions of release are necessary.

In case of reverse onus, the burden changes.

According to s. 515(6), it will be up to the accused to prove why there is no reason for his detention. After the 2026 amendments, it was specified that the accused must provide clear evidence regarding the effectiveness of the release proposal to address the statutory reasons for detention.

The release plan becomes especially significant in such cases.

However, reverse onus does not result in the inability of the accused to obtain release from custody.

What Is Different From an Ordinary Bail Hearing?

The basic difference concerns the burden at the hearing.

The exact bail analysis still depends on the Criminal Code and the circumstances before the court.

A reverse-onus hearing should therefore not be treated as a trial before the trial.

What Must the Accused Demonstrate?

Section 515(6) now places specific emphasis on the accused’s proposed release plan.

Where the provision applies, the accused must clearly demonstrate that the proposed plan addresses the risks associated with the relevant detention grounds under section 515(10).

A release plan may need to deal with practical questions such as:

• Where will the accused live?
• How will the accused attend court when required?
• How will any no-contact restriction be followed?
• Can the accused stay away from specified places if required?
• How will concerns about alleged interference with witnesses be addressed?
• Is supervision appropriate or available?
• Can the accused realistically comply with the proposed conditions?

A plan should respond to the actual concerns raised in the case. Simply saying that the accused promises to follow the rules may not address the issues the court must consider.

What Are the Three Grounds for Detention?

Grounds for detentions under Section 515(10)

There are three different grounds on which detention can be legally justified under Section 515(10).

The first is the ground of attendance. It deals with the question as to whether detention is needed for securing attendance in court.

The second ground is that of public protection or safety. It includes safety of the person who is considered the victim of the alleged crime or the witness. There could be a strong possibility of the accused committing another crime.

The tertiary ground concerns maintaining confidence in the administration of justice.

Regarding the tertiary factor, the Criminal Code highlights the following factors: the strength of the Crown’s case; the seriousness of the offence; the nature of the circumstances in which the offence occurred; and the potential for serious consequences if convicted.

After the amendment in 2026, s. 515(10)(c) has pointed out that consideration should also be made about the number or seriousness of other charges resulting from separate incidents.

The relevant grounds will depend on the circumstances of the case.

Does Reverse Onus Mean Bail Will Be Denied?

No.

Under the provisions of the Criminal Code, there are grounds for release should an accused under Section 515(6) be able to prove that detention is not warranted.

The most significant element is the burden.

The burden here shifts from the general presumption wherein it lies on the Crown to prove detention to be necessary to the accused who falls into one of the categories covered by the reverse onus provision.

It would be prudent for an accused to prepare in advance of the hearing especially when charged with strangulation assault.

The plan should deal with such issues as contact with the complainant, residency, compliance, and court appearance, among others.

Does the Accused Have to Challenge the Allegations at Bail?

A bail hearing can involve looking at the allegations and how strong the case appears to be. But the role of the bail hearing is not to decide the guilt of the individual.

It is not necessary for the accused to prove innocence before securing a release from jail.

The first thing that needs to be done in a reverse onus case is to explain why the detention cannot take place under the grounds set out in the Criminal Code and how the release plan helps to mitigate those risks.

That is an important difference.

An accused person can challenge the allegations and suggest conditions that will serve to address bail concerns. Acceptance of the release conditions doesn’t imply that the offence took place.

A criminal defence lawyer specializing in assault cases can ensure that those two issues remain distinct from each other.

What Happens After an Arrest for Alleged Strangulation in Calgary?

Step 1: Arrest and the Initial Release Decision

Once a person is arrested, the authorities have to figure out what the treatment of that person will be in accordance with the Criminal Code.

The accused person can be either released or detained pending the hearing of bail.

The allegation of strangulation is not, in and of itself, an indication that the person should be detained automatically.

Nevertheless, if there is an allegation of strangulation in the context of sections 266 to 268 and 271 to 273, then the reverse onus law may be applicable during the bail hearing according to section 515.

Step 2: The Accused May Be Held for a Bail Hearing

However, if police decide not to release the accused, the accused may have to appear before a Justice of the Peace or Justice regarding bail.

At this point, the question does not lie about whether the accused is guilty or not.

It depends on whether the detention of the accused is warranted either by primary, secondary, or tertiary grounds and whether the accused, in case reverse onus applies, has mitigated the issues involved in the release plan.

In case the hearing is continued, and the accused remains in custody, the court might also give an order regarding non-communication of the accused towards the victim, the witness, or other identifiable persons.

The accused must comply strictly with this order.

Step 3: Determine Whether Reverse Onus Applies

One of the first legal questions is whether the charge actually falls within section 515(6)(a)(ix).

A Calgary bail hearing lawyer may review:

• the Criminal Code section charged;
• the wording of the allegations;
• whether choking, suffocation, or strangulation is alleged;
• the accused’s criminal and release history;
• other outstanding charges;
• whether another reverse-onus provision applies; and
• the Crown’s position on detention or release.

This assessment matters because the burden at the bail hearing can change depending on the applicable provision.

The fact that a complainant alleges pressure to the neck should not replace an examination of the actual charge and the statutory requirements.

Step 4: Identify the Crown’s Bail Concerns

The Crown may oppose release or seek particular conditions based on one or more grounds under section 515(10).

The concerns may relate to:

• whether the accused will attend court;
• alleged risks to the complainant or public;
• possible interference with a victim or witness;
• past compliance with court orders;
• outstanding charges;
• the circumstances of the alleged offence; or
• maintaining confidence in the administration of justice.

In a reverse-onus case, the proposed release plan should respond directly to the risks raised rather than rely on broad promises that the accused will comply.

Step 5: Prepare a Practical Release Plan

A release plan explains how the accused proposes to live and comply with court requirements if released.

Depending on the case, it may address:

• where the accused will reside;
• whether that residence creates contact with the complainant;
• how no-contact terms can be followed;
• employment or school arrangements;
• transportation to court;
• supervision where appropriate;
• access to weapons;
• existing court orders; and
• other practical measures connected to the identified risks.

The 2026 reverse-onus wording specifically requires an accused caught by section 515(6) to clearly demonstrate how the proposed release plan addresses the relevant risks under section 515(10).

Step 6: The Bail Hearing Takes Place

At the hearing, the court looks at the relevant provisions of the Criminal Code, the parties’ positions, and all evidence that is legally before the court.

Where section 515(6)(a)(ix) is involved, the accused carries the reverse onus.

It does not imply that the accused needs to refute the claim of the assault.

It implies that the accused will need to demonstrate that detention is unnecessary and how the proposed release plan addresses those issues.

The court could either release the accused, impose conditions or detain him/her.

Step 7: Follow Every Release Condition

If the accused is released, every term of the undertaking or release order should be treated seriously.

A person should not assume that a condition allows conduct that is not clearly permitted.

For example, if an order prohibits communication with the complainant, the accused should not assume that communication through:

• a friend;
• a relative;
• a new social media account;
• another person’s telephone; or
• an online message

is permitted.

Indirect communication can also be prohibited where the wording of the order covers it.

If a condition is unclear, the safer course is to obtain legal advice rather than test its limits.

Breaching a release condition can lead to additional criminal consequences and may affect the accused’s release status.