Law360 Canada (June 24, 2026, 10:51 AM EDT) --

Gurjot K. Singh

What purpose does imprisonment serve when a person’s body has already become its own prison? That question lies at the core of Canada’s compassionate release laws under s. 121 of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act (CCRA). More than 30 years after its enactment, however, the provision remains rarely used, raising concerns that it exists more in theory than in practice.

Section 121 permits the Parole Board of Canada to grant parole “at any time” in exceptional circumstances. These include cases where an individual is terminally ill, has physical and mental health that is likely to suffer serious damage, facing excessive hardship that is not foreseeable at sentencing, or is detained pending extradition. Although the section aims to incorporate compassion into the correctional system, in practice, access is limited.

Unlike most forms of parole, individuals cannot apply directly under s. 121. Instead, Correctional Service Canada acts as a first step, responsible for identifying cases and then sending them over to the parole board. The result is a system that restricts access from the start. Even though the law is meant to be compassionate, it places decision-making in the hands of an administrative body not designed to function as a means to release. In practice, it becomes something that exists on paper but is rarely used, with a lack of transparency and publicly available information about how decisions are made or what decisions it produces.

The United States, particularly at the federal level, has moved toward an accessible model. The First Step Act of 2018 allows incarcerated individuals to apply directly to a court for compassionate release after a waiting period. This change responded to historical issues about delays and low approval rates under the prior system. At the state level, most governments provide for medical parole, and many include geriatric parole models that expand eligibility based on age and time served. While these provisions are broader than those in Canada, they are still used infrequently, reflecting the same gap as in Canada between what the law promises and how it is actually applied in practice.

The United Kingdom has a flexible approach. In England and Wales, compassionate release may be granted where continued incarceration would cause suffering beyond what the sentence intended, including in cases of terminal illness or severe incapacity. Importantly, the system also allows for temporary release, enabling prisoners to address urgent medical or family circumstances without requiring full release. In Scotland, ministers may authorize compassionate release at any point in a sentence, with advice from the parole board. Compared to Canada, these frameworks place greater emphasis on the lived experiences of incarceration and provide various pathways to release, rather than relying on a single, restricted process.

Australia’s model, in contrast, closely resembles Canada. Early release on compassionate grounds is available only in “exceptional circumstances,” typically where serious medical conditions cannot be managed in custody. Authority lies in the attorney general, and applications are assessed on a case-by-case basis with limited opportunities for further reviews. With decisions concentrated at the executive level and a high legal threshold to meet, the system remains narrow and rarely used.

New Zealand adopts a more defined but limited approach under the Parole Act 2002. Compassionate release is generally limited to cases of serious illness or childbirth, with decisions made by the parole board. While narrower in scope than Canada’s system, the criteria are clearer and the process more transparent, offering clarity in a way that Canada’s model lacks.

These comparisons reveal a consistent trend. Although many jurisdictions formally acknowledge the importance of compassionate release, the way these systems are structured often limits access. Canada falls toward the more restrictive end of these models, where compassion is complicated by a hierarchy and stricter provisions. By contrast, jurisdictions such as the United States at the federal level and parts of the United Kingdom indicate that more accessible and flexible approaches are possible, even as the issue of underuse continues. Too many Canadians continue to perish behind bars while suffering from illnesses that are beyond the capacity of the prison system to adequately treat, demonstrating the urgent need for Canada to amend its laws and procedures so that compassionate release can truly exist in practice.

Gurjot K. Singh is an articling student at the John Howard Society of Canada.

The opinions expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the author’s firm, its clients, Law360 Canada, LexisNexis Canada or any of its or their respective affiliates. This article is for general information purposes and is not intended to be and should not be taken as legal advice.

Interested in writing for us? To learn more about how you can add your voice to Law360 Canada, contact Analysis Editor Peter Carter at peter.carter@lexisnexis.ca or call 647-776-6740.