When a Canadian offender faces the likelihood of conviction in a criminal case, their defence lawyer’s efforts typically tend to focus on mitigating the harshness of the penalties that the court can impose upon sentencing. Above all else, most offenders hope to avoid incarceration or, at the least, limit its duration. Fines, probation, and restitution represent among the best non-custodial outcomes in such cases. However, house arrest in Canada is another favourable sentencing option that can keep the offender out of jail.
With a stellar record of securing positive outcomes for their Ontario clients, the Toronto criminal lawyers of Mass Tsang are intimately familiar with how house arrest works in Canada. Read on to learn more about this innovative sentencing option, how it works in practice, and to review frequently asked questions our clients ask about house arrest in Canada.
House arrest in Canada is the informal term for a “ conditional sentence order (CSO),” which judges may grant to convicted offenders sentenced to two or less years of incarceration. Section 742.1 of the Criminal Code allows judges to grant this alternative sentencing option if they believe that house arrest will not endanger the public and that it falls in line with the Code’s Section 718 sentencing principles . Offenders convicted of offences that carry mandatory minimum prison terms are ineligible, as are offences involving:
Section 742.3 of the Code sets forth the conditions under which a judge may grant house arrest. Mandatory conditions include:
Discretionary conditions judges are allowed to impose on those granted house arrest include:
Implicit in a CSO is that the offender serves their “custodial sentence” in the community under supervision. Thus, judges typically require offenders to remain at home—house arrest—when not working, attending school, or attending to necessities such as medical care or grocery shopping. The CSO may specify time frames when the offender is required to be at home, and when they are otherwise allowed to be at their workplace, school, or other applicable location. In some cases, a CSO might just include designated times—a curfew—during which the offender must be at their home. Additionally, CSOs are often modified over time to provide offenders greater freedom of movement—for example, from a strict timetable to a general curfew.
While not specifically detailed in the Criminal Code, electronic monitoring via an ankle bracelet or other GPS device has emerged as a widely applied “reasonable condition.” Generally, a judge might impose this condition if they have concerns that the offender may be likely to re-offend or breach the terms of the CSO.
Overall, CSO conditions vary widely among offenders, and a skilled defence lawyer may be able to mitigate their severity.
When releasing suspected criminal offenders from jail on bail— pretrial release —provisions in Section 514(4) of the Criminal Code allow judges to impose “reasonable conditions” on those so released. Thus, house arrest and its related stipulations have been widely adopted as a reasonable condition for pretrial release.
However, the difference between pre-trial house arrest and CSO-related house arrest is that breaching house arrest imposed as a pre-trial release condition is a criminal offence. Breaching a CSO-related house arrest is an administrative offence.
If you’re facing criminal charges in the Greater Toronto Area, the defence lawyers of Mass Tsang can assess your situation to determine innovative ways to secure the most favourable outcome possible. With a stellar reputation and outstanding record of successful criminal defence work in the GTA, contact our legal experts 24/7 for a free consultation.
It depends. While those accused of breaching the terms of a conditional sentence order (CSO) face arrest or a summons to appear in court, the breach itself does not constitute a criminal offence. Instead, it is treated as an administrative transgression adjudicated in a dedicated legal hearing before a judge. During this hearing, the Crown must prove on a balance of probabilities that the offender committed the breach. In contrast, the offender may offer a reasonable excuse if they have one.
On the other hand, breaching a house arrest-related order imposed as part of pretrial release constitutes a breach of a court order, a separate criminal offence that carries a maximum two-year sentence whether charged under indictment or summarily.
Possible administrative outcomes of breaching a CSO include:
The breach and new criminal offence are addressed separately. The alleged offender will need to prepare a separate defence against the new charge(s) while also preparing to challenge the alleged breach in the administrative hearing.
The Criminal Code provides courts complete discretion to determine whether to include electronic monitoring as a condition of house arrest. While statistics are limited, data suggest that electronic monitoring is used more frequently as a tool for pre-trial release than for those sentenced to CSO house arrest. That said, the severity of the criminal offence typically dictates whether a judge might include electronic monitoring as part of the CSO terms of house arrest.
It depends on the severity of the alleged breach. If you believe the breach could lead to the suspension or termination of your CSO and subsequent incarceration, a skilled defence lawyer may be able to help you avoid that outcome.
Legal Content Disclaimer:
Legally Reviewed by
Jeff Mass
| Updated: August 28, 2026
