In Canadian criminal law, the offence of trap causing bodily harm covers situations where someone intentionally sets up, or allows to remain, a dangerous trap, device, or similar hazard that is likely to injure or kill another person. Classified as a hybrid offence under the Criminal Code, this charge allows the Crown to proceed either by indictment or by summary conviction, depending on the seriousness of the conduct and its consequences. Under the Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) scheme, this conduct is recorded as UCR Code 1475. Section 247 of the Criminal Code is designed to protect people from hidden, man‑made dangers in places where they should reasonably expect to be safe, such as trails, buildings, workplaces, or private property lawfully entered.
The Legal Definition
Every person 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 with intent to cause death or bodily harm to a person, whether ascertained or not,
(a) sets or places a trap, device or other thing that is likely to cause death or bodily harm to a person; or
(b) being in occupation or possession of a place, knowingly permits such a trap, device or other thing to remain in that place.
In plain English, Section 247 makes it a crime to either create a trap or allow a trap to remain in a place you control, if:
- you intend to cause death or bodily harm to a person (even if you do not know exactly who), and
- the trap, device, or thing is likely to cause death or bodily harm.
The law is not limited to traditional “traps” like snares or pits. It covers any trap, device or other thing that functions like a hidden or unexpected danger, such as wires, sharp objects placed at head height, improvised explosive devices, or rigged doors and stairways. The focus is on whether the setup is likely to cause serious injury or death and whether it was done (or allowed to remain) with the required intent.
Importantly, Section 247 also targets people who are in occupation or possession of a place—for example, owners, tenants, or caretakers—who knowingly permit such a trap to remain there. This means you do not have to be the person who physically set the trap; if you know it exists, control the place, and allow it to remain despite the risk, you may still be criminally liable. The statute, as set out on the official Justice Canada website, treats this offence as serious because it endangers anyone who might reasonably pass through or enter the area.
Penalties & Sentencing Framework
- Mandatory minimum penalty: None.
- Basic offence (s. 247(1)) – Trap likely to cause bodily harm or death:
- Indictable: Maximum of 5 years imprisonment.
- Summary conviction: Punishment as provided for summary conviction offences (typically lower maximum jail time and/or fines).
- With bodily harm (s. 247(2)) – Trap actually causes bodily harm:
- Indictable: Maximum of 10 years imprisonment.
- In an offence‑related place with bodily harm (s. 247(4)) – e.g., trap connected to another crime scene:
- Indictable: Maximum of 14 years imprisonment.
Because this is a hybrid offence, the Crown decides whether to proceed by indictment or summary conviction. Summary conviction is typically reserved for less serious instances—for example, where the trap was discovered before anyone was hurt, the risk was lower, and the accused has little or no prior record. In those cases, the penalties are generally more limited, and the overall procedural framework is faster and less complex.
When the Crown proceeds by indictment, the case is treated more seriously. The available maximums increase significantly when the trap actually injures someone or is linked to an “offence‑related place” (such as a drug operation, illegal weapons storage, or other criminal enterprise). Section 247(2) raises the maximum to 10 years if bodily harm results, and Section 247(4) raises it to 14 years when bodily harm occurs in connection with an offence‑related place. These higher maximums reflect Parliament’s concern with hidden dangers placed in the context of other criminal activity, where unsuspecting police, first responders, or members of the public may be at heightened risk.
There is no mandatory minimum sentence, so judges retain discretion to impose a sentence tailored to the offender and the circumstances. In deciding on a sentence, courts consider factors such as: the level of planning and intent, the degree of risk created, whether children or vulnerable people were likely to encounter the trap, whether any bodily harm actually occurred (and how serious it was), whether the trap was connected to other criminal activity, and the offender’s prior criminal record. Sentences can range from discharges or fines (in minor summary cases with no injury) to years of imprisonment where bodily harm is caused or risk to the public is significant.
Common Defenses
- Lack of intent to cause death or bodily harm:
Section 247 explicitly requires that the accused act “with intent to cause death or bodily harm”. A central defense may therefore be that the person did not have this specific intent. For example, if the accused can show that the device was meant as a visible, non‑harmful deterrent (such as a clearly marked barrier) rather than a hidden hazard, or that its harmful potential was not reasonably foreseeable, this can undermine the mental element of the offence. Evidence about how the device was constructed, how visible it was, and what the accused believed about its effects is often critical. If the Crown cannot prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused meant to cause serious harm, an acquittal may result. - Lack of knowledge or control (for occupiers):
For individuals charged under paragraph 247(1)(b) (knowingly permitting a trap to remain), the Crown must prove that the accused was in occupation or possession of the place and knowingly permitted the trap to remain. A defense may arise where the accused genuinely did not know the trap was there, had very limited control over the property, or took reasonable steps to remove the hazard once they found out. If a landlord, for instance, never had access to certain areas and reasonably relied on others to ensure safety, they may argue a lack of knowledge or effective control over the trap. - Lawful excuse:
While Section 247 does not list explicit statutory defenses, in some rare circumstances an accused might argue that their actions were justified by a lawful excuse. This could include situations where safety devices or barriers are reasonably necessary and proportionate for a legitimate purpose (for example, occupational safety measures, properly marked electric fences for livestock, or security features that are clearly visible and not intended to cause serious injury). The key distinction is between a hidden, intentional trap designed to injure and a legitimate safety or security measure compliant with applicable laws and standards. Where the device is lawful, clearly signposted, and not intended to cause bodily harm, the conduct may fall outside the core mischief that Section 247 seeks to prevent. - Self‑defense or defense of property:
General principles of self‑defense and defense of property under the Criminal Code may be raised, but they are tightly constrained when it comes to traps. Canadian law generally requires that defensive force be reasonable in the circumstances and proportionate to the threat. Setting an indiscriminate, concealed trap that could seriously injure anyone—intruders, neighbours, emergency responders, or children—will almost always be seen as excessive and unreasonable. However, in highly unusual situations, an accused might argue that measures taken were genuinely necessary and narrowly tailored to an immediate threat. Courts scrutinize such claims closely, and the broader the risk to the public, the less likely it is that a self‑defense or property‑defense argument will succeed. - General Charter and procedural defenses:
As with other criminal charges, accused persons may challenge the lawfulness of the investigation and evidence collection. For example, if police breached the accused’s rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (such as through an unlawful search or seizure, or a failure to respect the right to counsel), defense counsel may seek to exclude evidence under section 24(2) of the Charter. While these are not defences specific to trap causing bodily harm, they can play a decisive role in whether the Crown can prove the charge.
Real-World Example
Imagine a person stretches a nearly invisible wire across a public trail at knee height with the intent of tripping bicyclists who pass by. One evening, a cyclist rides along the trail, hits the wire, is thrown from the bike, and suffers a broken arm and concussion. Police investigate the scene, find the wire fixed intentionally between two trees, and through surveillance footage identify the person who set it up.
Under Section 247, this individual could be charged with trap causing bodily harm. The wire is a “trap, device or other thing” likely to cause bodily harm; it was placed with the intent to cause bodily harm (tripping cyclists), and it in fact caused bodily harm to the cyclist. Because actual bodily harm occurred, the Crown would likely proceed under the more serious provisions (such as s. 247(2)), carrying a potential maximum of 10 years imprisonment if prosecuted by indictment. The fact that the trap was on a public trail, where anyone might reasonably travel, would be an aggravating factor in sentencing, as it exposes the broader public to hidden danger.
Record Suspensions (Pardons)
A conviction for an offence under Section 247—whether for setting a trap likely to cause bodily harm or for trap causing bodily harm with actual injury—will appear on an individual’s criminal record. This can affect employment, travel, licensing, immigration, and many other aspects of life. In Canada, a person can apply for a record suspension (formerly called a pardon) through the Parole Board of Canada, provided they meet the eligibility criteria.
For this hybrid offence, the applicable waiting period depends on how the Crown proceeded and what sentence was imposed:
- Indictable conviction: Generally, an individual must wait at least 5 years after completing all parts of their sentence (including jail, probation, and payment of fines) before applying for a record suspension.
- Summary conviction: For cases prosecuted summarily, the general waiting period is 3 years after the full completion of sentence.
Eligibility is not automatic. The Parole Board assesses whether the person has been of good conduct since completing their sentence and whether granting a record suspension would sustain public confidence in the administration of justice. Because trap causing bodily harm is considered a serious offence involving deliberate risk to others, the Board will pay close attention to the person’s rehabilitation, time elapsed, and evidence that they no longer pose a safety risk. A record suspension, if granted, does not erase the conviction but sets it aside in the Canadian Police Information Centre (CPIC) database, helping to reduce the day‑to‑day impact of the record.
Related Violations
- Criminal Negligence Causing Bodily Harm
- Assault Causing Bodily Harm
- Attempt to Commit Murder