The digital landscape has changed drastically in recent years. Now, Canadian criminal law is finally catching up. Following the June 2026 passage of the Protecting Victims Act (Bill C-16), with its key digital abuse provisions which came into force on July 18, 2026, individuals facing allegations involving digital abuse confront a significantly expanded criminal law framework. The sweeping legislation equips police and prosecutors with new legal tools designed to target technology-facilitated harassment, addressing gaps in the law that previously complicated enforcement.
Sexual deepfakes and threats to share intimate images
Before this legislation, prosecuting non-consensual distribution of artificial intelligence-generated media involved significant grey areas. The amendments now expressly address certain AI-generated sexual deepfakes. Bill C-16 explicitly includes qualifying AI generated sexual deepfakes within Canada’s non-consensual intimate image laws. The new definition covers electronically or mechanically created sexual depictions of identifiable individuals that are likely to be mistaken for actual visual recordings of those individuals, provided the other statutory requirements are satisfied. Qualifying synthetic images are therefore subject to the same non-consensual distribution offence as authentic intimate photographs or videos. However, the mere creation of an AI-generated image does not, by itself, necessarily constitute an offence under these provisions.
Equally significant is the closure of the “threat” loophole. The Protecting Victims Act makes knowingly threatening to distribute an intimate image without consent a standalone criminal offence, where the threat is made with the intent to intimidate or to be taken seriously and the accused knows or is reckless as to whether the person depicted would consent. This includes qualifying sexual deepfakes. Furthermore, the maximum penalty for non-consensual distribution of intimate images prosecuted by indictment has doubled, jumping from five to 10 years in prison. The new offence of threatening to distribute an intimate image also carries a maximum sentence of 10 years’ imprisonment when prosecuted by indictment. The government is sending a clear message. Threatening to destroy someone’s reputation digitally now carries potentially serious criminal consequences.
The legislation also permits courts to impose restrictions on an offender’s use of the Internet or other digital networks following a conviction or conditional discharge for certain intimate-image offences. These additional measures are intended to address the risks associated with technology-facilitated offending.
Sextortion is now treated more seriously
The intersection of digital threats and financial or sexual demands has become an increasingly serious concern. Prosecutors historically relied on standard extortion charges when perpetrators threatened to release intimate imagery unless demands were met.
The new reforms address this directly. The legislation formally establishes the sexual nature or sexual purpose of an extortion offence as a statutory aggravating factor at sentencing. As we recently outlined in our breakdown of how sextortion is explained under current law, this specific aggravating factor strengthens the sentencing framework for these offences. Where extortion is committed for a sexual purpose or is sexual in nature, sentencing judges are now expressly required to consider that circumstance as an aggravating factor, potentially resulting in a more severe sentence. However, the ultimate sentence remains individualized and subject to the ordinary principles of proportionality and sentencing discretion.
Extortion already carries a maximum sentence of life imprisonment under the Criminal Code. Bill C-16 does not increase that maximum penalty, but it expressly recognizes the sexual nature or purpose of an extortion offence as an aggravating circumstance. The stakes for anyone accused of this conduct remain exceptionally serious.
Criminal harassment now accounts for modern technology
The reforms also modernize how courts evaluate fear and stalking in the digital age. Previously, criminal harassment charges required proof that the complainant actually feared for their safety, along with proof that the fear was reasonable in the circumstances.
The new law shifts this to an objective standard. Courts will now evaluate alleged harassing conduct, including threats and electronic monitoring, based on whether the conduct could reasonably be expected to cause the complainant to believe that their safety, or the safety of someone known to them, was threatened. The Crown is no longer required to prove that the complainant actually experienced fear.
This seemingly minor wording change significantly alters an essential element of the offence. It makes it potentially easier for the Crown to establish criminal harassment s in cases involving repetitive texting, digital tracking and online harassment, even if the complainant didn’t explicitly articulate their fear at the time.
The legislation also expressly addresses monitoring another person’s location, movements, actions or social interactions, including the monitoring of someone known to that person. It further recognizes threats to psychological safety, reflecting the realities of harassment conducted through digital platforms and electronic surveillance.
However, the Crown must still prove the other essential elements of criminal harassment, including prohibited conduct without lawful authority and the required mental element. The prosecution must establish that the accused intended to harass, knew the conduct was harassing or was reckless as to whether the complainant was harassed. As with any criminal offence, the Crown must prove the elements beyond a reasonable doubt.
What these reforms mean for accused persons
These sweeping amendments represent a major modernization of the Criminal Code. By explicitly extending intimate-image offences to qualifying AI-generated sexual deepfakes, increasing the maximum indictable sentence for non-consensual distribution of intimate images, creating a specific offence for threats to distribute those images and changing the legal requirements for criminal harassment, the federal government has fundamentally altered how certain technology-facilitated offences are prosecuted.
A threat to distribute a qualifying intimate image without consent can now expose an accused person to a maximum sentence of 10 years in prison if prosecuted by indictment, provided the Crown proves all elements of the offence. However, merely creating an AI-generated image or sending an unwelcome text message does not automatically constitute a criminal offence. The particular conduct, surrounding circumstances and statutory requirements remain critical.
“These amendments represent a significant expansion of Canadian criminal law in response to the growing use of technology to intimidate, exploit and harass others. The removal of the subjective-fear requirement for criminal harassment is particularly important. However, while Parliament has broadened the scope of these offences, the Crown must still prove every essential element beyond a reasonable doubt. For anyone accused of these offences, the precise wording of the legislation and the digital evidence will be critical to the defence,” says Mike Kruse, founding partner of Kruse Law.
The expanded reach of these new laws means that anyone facing allegations requires experienced, strategic defence representation.If you are navigating these serious criminal allegations, our team of sexual assault lawyers in Ontario brings the rigorous trial experience needed to challenge digital evidence and protect your rights.
Contact Kruse Law today at 1-800-699-0806 for a free, confidential consultation to discuss your case and understand exactly what these new reforms mean for your defence.
Michael Kruse is a seasoned criminal defence lawyer with more than 36 years of experience in Ontario. A former Assistant Crown Attorney, Mike brings decades of courtroom and trial experience to the defence of serious criminal charges. He leads Kruse Law Firm with a strategic, practical approach focused on strong advocacy and achieving the best possible outcome for every client.
