Section 145 of the Criminal Code: Failure to Comply with Court Orders in Canada

Sara Santos-Vigneault
5 days ago
3 min read

Written by: Sara Santos-Vigneault

Date: April 20, 2026

Open law book showing "CRIMINAL CODE Section 145 Failure to Comply," with handcuffs, gavel, pen, and Canadian flag in background.

Court ordered conditions are not optional. In Canadian criminal law, once an undertaking or release order is in place, the obligation to follow it becomes a matter of criminal liability in its own right. Section 145 of the Criminal Code creates separate offences for failing to attend court, failing to surrender, breaching an undertaking, and breaching a release order. [1]

The Supreme Court of Canada has recognized how frequently these offences appear in the criminal courts. In R v Zora, the Court noted that offences for failure to comply with court orders represent a significant portion of administration of justice charges in Canada. [2]

What Section 145 Covers

Section 145 is not a single offence. It contains several related provisions addressing non compliance with court process and release conditions.

These include:

Failure to attend court or surrender while at large on a release order
Failure to appear under an appearance notice or summons
Failure to comply with a condition of an undertaking
Failure to comply with a condition of a release order
Failure to comply with certain fingerprinting related orders

These offences may proceed by summary conviction or indictment, depending on the circumstances. [1]

Court Orders Have Independent Legal Force

A charge under section 145 is separate from the original offence that led to the condition being imposed. A person may still face criminal liability for breaching conditions even if the underlying charge is later withdrawn, stayed, or does not result in a conviction.

The legal issue in a section 145 prosecution is whether a valid order existed and whether its terms were not followed without lawful excuse. [1]

Undertakings and Release Orders

Section 145 most often arises in the context of pre trial release. Conditions may be imposed by police or by the court to address concerns such as attendance in court, public safety, and confidence in the administration of justice. [4]

Common conditions include reporting requirements, curfews, geographic restrictions, no contact terms, and prohibitions relating to weapons.

In R v Antic, the Supreme Court of Canada confirmed that release conditions must be reasonable and necessary, and that the law favours release on the least onerous conditions appropriate in the circumstances. [3]

A courtroom with a wooden desk holding papers and a pen in focus, empty judge's bench in the background, and a Canadian flag nearby.

The Role of Fault and Lawful Excuse

Section 145 requires more than proof that a condition was not followed. In R v Zora, the Supreme Court clarified that certain breach offences require proof of subjective fault, meaning the accused’s state of mind must be considered. [2]

The statute also refers to failures occurring “without lawful excuse.” This language recognizes that not every instance of non compliance will result in criminal liability, depending on the circumstances and the applicable subsection. [1]

Multiple Charges From a Single Incident

More than one charge may arise from a single incident where multiple conditions are not followed. Each condition is treated as a separate legal obligation.

For example, a failure to comply with both a curfew and a no contact condition may result in separate charges under section 145. [1]

Practical Consequences in the Bail Context

Failure to comply with release conditions may have broader procedural consequences. Breaches may result in new charges, changes to release status, or detention.

The Department of Justice has identified non compliance with bail conditions as a factor that may affect future release decisions within the criminal process. [4]

Conclusion

Section 145 exists to enforce compliance with court orders. Once conditions are imposed, they carry legal weight on their own. Failing to follow them can result in separate charges, regardless of how the original case is ultimately resolved.

At the same time, Canadian law does not treat every breach as automatic criminal liability. The courts have made clear that the analysis does not end with identifying a failure to comply. Decisions such as R v Zora confirm that fault, context, and the nature of the obligation remain central to determining whether a criminal offence has been committed.

This reflects a broader balance within the criminal justice system. Court orders are meant to be followed, and they play an important role in maintaining structure and accountability within the process. However, the law continues to distinguish between non-compliance and criminal fault, ensuring that liability is not imposed without proper consideration of the circumstances.