Bill 97 amends the Family Violence Protection Act to add a statutory definition of “care relationship” and to expand who may apply for an emergency protection order (EPO). It explicitly allows people who are or were in a care relationship with a respondent to apply, and it removes residency requirements for certain relatives and parents who jointly parent with a respondent.
Most other changes are drafting updates that replace gendered pronouns with neutral phrases (for example, “the applicant,” “the respondent,” “the judge”) in multiple provisions governing applications, notice, review, variation and property effects. The practical result is broader standing for dependents and relatives and clearer, standardized references to the parties and decision‑maker — changes that will affect courts, service providers, long‑term care settings and landlords without altering the Act’s core remedy framework.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill inserts a new definition of “care relationship” — dependency for assistance in daily life activities because of disability, illness or impairment — and explicitly permits such persons to apply for EPOs. It also removes co‑residence requirements for relatives and parents who share children with a respondent and replaces gendered pronouns throughout several sections.
Who It Affects
Directly affected are people with disabilities or illnesses who rely on others for daily living, their informal and formal caregivers, relatives who do not live with a respondent, courts issuing EPOs, shelters and long‑term care facilities, and landlords or property managers when orders touch tenancy or leasehold interests.
Why It Matters
By widening the class of eligible applicants, the bill closes a procedural gap that could have left dependent persons without an accessible route to protection. It also reduces ambiguity in statutory references to actors — a small drafting change that matters operationally for service, notice, and judicial forms.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill makes two kinds of changes: one substantive (who may apply) and one technical (gender‑neutral language). Substantively, it adds “care relationship” to the Act and then lists who may bring an application for an emergency protection order.
The statutory definition of care relationship covers a situation where one person depends on another for assistance in daily life activities because of a disability, illness or impairment. The application categories already included conjugal partners and parents; the amendment makes clear that relatives and people in care relationships can apply even if they do not live or have never lived with the respondent.
Practically, that means an adult child who lives apart from a parent but who relies on the parent (or vice versa) may seek an EPO, and a sibling, grandparent, or other relative who is at risk need not prove co‑residence to have standing. The bill does not change the legal standard a judge uses to decide whether to grant an order, nor does it create a separate evidentiary regime; it simply broadens who may initiate proceedings.The rest of the amendments are targeted drafting updates that replace gendered pronouns with neutral identifiers — for example, changing “his or her” to “the applicant’s” or “he or she” to “the respondent.” Those edits appear in provisions dealing with granting orders without notice, giving notice to respondents, rights of review, variation or termination of orders, and the Act’s references to property and leasehold interests.
On the ground, this will simplify form language, make statutory references clearer to administrators, and require minor updates to court forms and agency guidance.What the bill does not do is extend new enforcement powers, alter the duration or conditions of EPOs, or overhaul how evidence is admitted. It also does not specify procedures for proving a care relationship, nor does it add funding or administrative resources; those implementation questions will fall to courts, social service agencies and care institutions to resolve in practice.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill adds a new definition: “care relationship” — a relationship where one person is or was dependent on the other for assistance in daily life activities because of a disability, illness or impairment.
The amended application list (new subsection 4(1)) explicitly allows applications from people who are or were in a care relationship with the respondent, in addition to conjugal partners, joint parents and blood/marriage/adoption relatives.
Relatives related by blood, marriage or adoption may apply for an EPO regardless of whether they currently reside or have ever resided with the respondent.
Multiple provisions are redrafted to use neutral identifiers: amendments replace phrases like “his or her” or “he or she” with “the applicant,” “the respondent” or “the judge” in sections governing notice, review, variation/termination and property effects.
Section 14(3), which governs the Act’s effect on property and leasehold interests, is amended only to substitute gender‑neutral wording (to “the applicant’s”), leaving the substantive rule about property untouched.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
New definition and drafting update
This section inserts the statutory definition of “care relationship” into s.2 and changes a cross‑reference subparagraph to use gender‑neutral phrasing (“the applicant’s”). The added definition is specific: dependency for assistance with daily life because of disability, illness or impairment. For practitioners, the key practical point is that the statute now contains the term courts will rely on when assessing standing for vulnerable adults — but it does not prescribe how to prove that dependency.
Drafting clean‑up in the definition of family violence
This amendment replaces gendered pronouns in provisions that describe family violence. The change does not alter the scope of conduct that counts as family violence; it harmonizes language so that later references to applicants and respondents are consistent across the Act, which reduces confusion when drafting applications, orders and notice documents.
Who may apply for an emergency protection order
This is the substantive expansion. The substituted subsection 4(1) lists four applicant categories: current/former conjugal partners; persons who share parenthood with the respondent; relatives by blood, marriage or adoption (no co‑residence required); and persons in or formerly in a care relationship. The practical implication is broader standing: caregivers, dependents and non‑cohabiting relatives can initiate EPO proceedings, which may increase filings and require adjudicators to assess relational and dependency facts at the application stage.
Granting orders without notice — language standardization
Subsection 5(3) is edited to replace gendered phrasing with “the applicant’s.” The provision continues to govern circumstances in which a judge may issue an order without notice to the other person, but the amendment makes the actor references consistent. Operationally, courts will need to update forms and judicial directions to reflect the neutral phrasing.
Notice to respondent — neutral reference
Subsection 8(1) replaces “he or she” with “the respondent.” The change clarifies who must receive notice and standardizes the language used in service instructions. It does not change timing or method of service set out elsewhere in the Act.
Right to review — neutralized pronoun
Paragraph 9(1)(a) is amended to use “the respondent’s” rather than gendered pronouns. The substantive right of a respondent to seek review remains intact; the edit simply aligns statutory drafting to modern, neutral terminology, which can reduce ambiguity in rules governing appeals or reviews.
Variation or termination applications — judge reference clarified
Subsection 12(6) substitutes “the judge” for gendered pronouns where the statute references the decision‑maker. This is a drafting fix that removes awkward pronoun chains in provisions that let parties apply to vary or end an order, affecting how court reasons are written and cited.
Effect on property and leasehold interest — wording update
Subsection 14(3) is changed only to replace “his or her” with “the applicant’s.” The bill leaves intact whatever substantive limitations or protections the Act provides for property and leasehold interests affected by an order, but the change means any reference to applicant property interests will use consistent neutral phrasing, which is relevant to landlords, property managers and housing advocates handling EPOs.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on this topic across all five countries.
Explore this topic in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- People in care relationships (people with disabilities, chronic illness, cognitive impairment): The explicit definition and standing provision give dependents or those they rely on a direct route to seek emergency protection without requiring co‑residence.
- Non‑cohabiting relatives (adult children, siblings, parents, grandparents): Relatives who live apart from a respondent can apply for EPOs, removing a potential technical barrier to protection when abuse occurs across households.
- Advocates and frontline service providers (shelters, elder abuse programs, community legal clinics): Clearer statutory language and expanded standing simplify intake decisions and may reduce gatekeeping disputes about who may initiate an application.
- Courts and registries: Standardized neutral language reduces drafting ambiguity and the administrative friction of updating forms and templates that previously used multiple pronoun forms.
Who Bears the Cost
- Respondents: A wider class of eligible applicants may lead to more applications and interim orders being made against people who previously might not have been subject to EPOs, increasing the burden of defending against such orders.
- Long‑term care facilities and formal caregivers: Orders that restrict contact or residence could conflict with necessary caregiving duties, forcing facilities and staff to navigate safety directives versus care obligations.
- Courts and administrative bodies: Although largely drafting changes, the amendments will require updating forms, training staff, and potentially handling a higher volume of standing challenges and urgent applications.
- Landlords and housing managers: Because the Act’s property/leasehold clause now refers neutrally to “the applicant’s” interest, landlords may face more frequent requests to enforce or accommodate orders affecting tenancy, creating administrative and legal friction.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is trade‑off between access and accuracy: broadening who may apply protects more potentially vulnerable people (especially dependents and remote relatives) but also risks increased interim orders, contested standing, and collateral disruption to caregiving and property relationships — without new procedural rules or resources to manage those risks.
The bill widens standing for emergency protection orders but stops short of providing procedural detail on how new applicants prove eligibility. The definition of “care relationship” ties standing to dependency for daily living assistance, which raises immediate evidentiary questions: what documents, medical evidence or institutional attestations suffice at the urgent application stage?
Courts accustomed to dealing with co‑resident applicants will need to develop workable standards for quick assessments without converting EPO hearings into full evidentiary trials.
There is also a tension between protecting vulnerable people and preserving essential caregiving relationships. An EPO that restricts contact between a dependent and a caregiver can protect the dependent from harm, but it can also jeopardize necessary assistance if the order does not provide clear carve‑outs for needed care activities.
The bill does not add procedural mechanisms to reconcile protective orders with continuity of care, leaving that work to judges, facilities, and agencies. Finally, because most changes are drafting‑level, the real impact depends on implementation: updated court forms, training for police and service providers, and guidance for landlords and care institutions — none of which the bill funds or prescribes explicitly.
There's more to this law than the bill.
Codify Laws traces every connection across the legislative lifecycle.