This bill forbids parties responsible for workplace harassment or discrimination, and alleged perpetrators, from entering into non-disclosure or non-disparagement provisions that have the purpose or effect of concealing unlawful harassment or discrimination, except where the person who experienced the harm expressly prefers confidentiality and strict conditions are met. It defines key terms, lists a set of permitted disclosures, and declares non-compliant agreements void.
The measure matters because it rebalances settlement practice in the province: it preserves a complainant's ability to insist on confidentiality while preventing employers and alleged perpetrators from using NDAs to silence reports, and it puts teeth behind that rule by creating a summary offence with a $2,000–$10,000 fine and by allowing regulations to fill gaps left by the statute.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill makes NDAs that conceal allegations of harassment or discrimination unenforceable unless the complainant explicitly requests confidentiality and the agreement meets five enforceability conditions (independent legal advice, no undue influence, no harm to third-party health/safety or public interest, a future-waiver option, and a limited duration). It also treats equivalent non-disparagement clauses as NDAs for these purposes.
Who It Affects
Directly affects employers and other 'parties responsible' under workplace laws, individuals alleged to have committed harassment or discrimination, employees or complainants negotiating settlement agreements, and legal/HR advisors who draft or approve settlement terms in Nova Scotia.
Why It Matters
The bill changes how settlements resolving harassment or discrimination complaints can be structured in Nova Scotia, narrows the scope of confidentiality in such settlements, and creates a provincial enforcement lever and a criminal-summary fine for non-compliance—shifting bargaining leverage and compliance costs in workplace dispute resolution.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The Act starts by setting a narrow purpose: regulate the content and use of written confidentiality terms that accompany settlement agreements tied to allegations of harassment or discrimination. It gives statutory definitions for key concepts (including a broad definition of harassment that explicitly lists sexualized conduct) and defines the classes of people the law governs: a "relevant person" (someone who experienced or alleged harassment/discrimination), the "party responsible" (those with a legal duty to prevent harassment where it occurred), and the person alleged to have committed the misconduct.
The core substantive rule appears in Section 5. The statute bars parties responsible and alleged perpetrators from entering NDAs that have the purpose or effect of concealing unlawful harassment or discrimination unless the confidentiality is the express wish of the complainant and the NDA satisfies five conditions.
Those conditions require the complainant have a reasonable chance to get independent legal advice, that there be no undue attempts to influence the complainant, that the NDA not harm third-party health or safety or the public interest, that the complainant be given a clear, built-in option to later waive confidentiality, and that the NDA be for a set, limited duration. The Act also declares any agreement that fails those criteria void.Section 5 contains a long list of carved-out disclosures and communications that an NDA cannot bar.
These include disclosures protected or required by specified provincial statutes (Labour Standards, Human Rights, Occupational Health and Safety) and any federal enactment; communications with defined categories of professionals and supports (lawyers, medical practitioners, registered psychologists, registered nurses and nurse practitioners, social workers, victim services, culturally specific counsellors, the Ombudsman), and approved friends/family or classes prescribed by regulation. It also explicitly safeguards a complainant's right to engage in unnamed artistic expression, so long as it does not identify the alleged wrongdoer or the NDA terms, and it allows a former employee to tell a prospective employer that a settlement and NDA exist without disclosing particulars of the misconduct.The Act treats pre-existing NDAs consistently with these carve-outs: NDAs entered before the Act came into force do not prevent the disclosures listed in the statute.
Enforcement is summary conviction with a prescribed fine range ($2,000–$10,000) for anyone who, after the law comes into force, enters into a prohibited NDA. The Governor in Council may make regulations to define additional classes of persons covered by the disclosure carve-outs, define undefined terms, and otherwise carry out the Act's intent.
The law is set to come into force January 1, 2026, unless brought into force earlier by proclamation.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill voids any confidentiality or non-disparagement clause that has the purpose or effect of concealing allegations of harassment or discrimination unless the complainant expressly requests confidentiality and five statutory enforceability conditions are met.
To be enforceable, a confidentiality clause must give the complainant a reasonable opportunity for independent legal advice, be free of undue influence, not endanger third‑party health/safety or the public interest, include a process for future waiver by the complainant, and be limited to a set duration.
Section 5(6) lists explicit exceptions: disclosures required or protected under the Labour Standards Act, Human Rights Act, Occupational Health and Safety Act, communications with a specified set of professionals and supports (including lawyers, medical practitioners, registered psychologists, nurses, social workers, victim services, the Ombudsman), and artistic expression that does not identify the parties or NDA terms.
The Act imposes a summary-conviction offence for entering a prohibited NDA after the law takes effect, with fines set between $2,000 and $10,000.
The Governor in Council may create regulations to expand the list of persons exempted from NDAs, define statutory terms, and address other matters necessary to implement the Act.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title, purpose and definitions
These opening provisions establish scope: the Act applies to written confidentiality or non-disparagement provisions in settlement agreements that relate to alleged harassment or discrimination. The statutory definitions matter because they determine who is a "relevant person," what conduct qualifies as "harassment," and who counts as a "party responsible"—all of which trigger the prohibitions and exceptions in later sections. Practically, this means workplaces, training sites and other environments where an entity has a legal duty to prevent harassment are directly in scope.
Administration
Assigns responsibility for administering the Act to the Minister designated by the Governor in Council. That administrative link gives the Minister the formal authority to oversee regulations and any guidance but does not itself create new investigative or adjudicative powers; enforcement is left to criminal procedure for the prescribed offence.
Prohibition on NDAs and conditions for enforceability
This is the operative core: NDAs that conceal harassment or discrimination are generally prohibited. They are only enforceable if the complainant expressly asks for confidentiality and the agreement meets five conditions set out in the statute. Because the statute makes non-compliant NDAs void, the remedy is contractual nullification rather than a private right of action for damages within the Act itself; the voiding mechanism shifts disputes over enforceability back into civil or criminal procedure depending on how the parties proceed.
Limitations, permitted disclosures and scope of application
These subsections carve out necessary exceptions and practical rules: they forbid separate NDAs between the party responsible and the alleged perpetrator that would hinder lawful investigations, preserve specific statutory or protected disclosures (under provincial and federal law), protect communications with a closed list of professionals and supports, permit non-identifying artistic expression, allow limited disclosure to prospective employers about the existence of a settlement and NDA, require plain-language drafting where possible, and explicitly treat non-disparagement clauses as NDAs for enforcement purposes.
Effect on pre-existing agreements
The Act preserves the new carve-outs for agreements made before the law comes into force: prior NDAs do not prevent the disclosures listed in Section 5(6) and the employment-related disclosure in 5(7). That retroactivity is narrow—limited to permitted disclosures—so while it does not automatically void existing NDAs wholesale, it removes some of the confidentiality protections those agreements previously provided.
Offence and penalty
Makes it an offence for a party responsible or an alleged perpetrator to enter into a prohibited NDA after the Act is in force, with a summary-conviction fine between $2,000 and $10,000. The choice of summary conviction (not indictable) signals a provincial-level enforcement approach focused on fines rather than incarceration and places burden on prosecutorial discretion and the court's enforcement capacity.
Regulations
Authorizes the Governor in Council to prescribe additional persons or classes to whom NDAs do not apply, to define undefined terms, and to make other regulations necessary to carry out the Act. This delegated power is broad and will be where implementation details—such as additional protected supports or procedural rules—are developed.
Commencement
Sets the default effective date as January 1, 2026, with the option for an earlier proclamation. The delayed start date gives employers, counsel and regulators time to review existing settlement practices and draft compliant agreements, and provides a window for the Governor in Council to make implementing regulations before the Act takes full effect.
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
- Workers and complainants who experienced harassment or discrimination — the Act limits the ability of employers or alleged perpetrators to compel silence and preserves several routes (regulatory, prosecutorial, supportive) for reporting and support.
- Advocacy and support organizations (victim services, community elders, culturally specific counsellors) — the law expressly protects communications with listed supports and allows the regulations to add more classes, reinforcing access to culturally appropriate assistance.
- Prospective employers and hiring authorities — the Act preserves a former employee's right to disclose that a settlement and NDA exist when applying for jobs, helping reduce informational asymmetries in hiring where misconduct is relevant.
Who Bears the Cost
- Employers and 'parties responsible' — they will need to audit settlement templates, revise HR and legal processes, train staff, and possibly face fines if they enter into prohibited NDAs; increased disclosure can also raise reputational and liability exposure.
- Legal and HR advisors who draft and negotiate settlements — they must ensure NDAs meet the five statutory conditions (including facilitating independent counsel and drafting plain-language waivers), adding time and expense to settlements.
- Provincial enforcement and prosecutorial bodies — the summary offence and regulation-making will impose administrative and enforcement costs on prosecutors, courts and the responsible Minister's office, particularly where questions of 'undue influence' or 'public interest' arise.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is between protecting an individual's autonomy to choose confidentiality in resolving a painful dispute and preventing the systemic silencing of harassment and discrimination complaints; the bill tries to thread that needle by permitting complainant‑requested NDAs but imposing conditions and carve-outs that preserve reporting, support and public safety—yet those very conditions create grey areas and enforcement burdens that could undercut either goal depending on how they are applied.
The Act creates practical questions about standards and proof. Key terms are elastic: what counts as an "undue attempt to influence," what is a "reasonable opportunity" for independent legal advice, and when does an NDA "adversely affect" third-party health or the public interest?
Those ambiguities will drive litigation and prosecutorial guidance, and they are precisely the issues that regulations and case law will need to clarify. The law makes non-compliant NDAs void rather than creating a private statutory right for damages, which means aggrieved complainants must rely on civil contract claims, public prosecutors, or other statutory complaint mechanisms to enforce the policy—an enforcement architecture that may leave gaps in practice.
The bill also delegates wide authority to the Governor in Council to prescribe additional classes of persons exempted from NDAs and to define undefined terms. That delegation is necessary for practical rollout but concentrates significant implementation choices in the executive branch rather than in the legislature, raising questions about transparency and the timetable for regulatory detail.
Finally, requiring an opportunity for independent legal advice and a plain-language drafting requirement will increase transactional costs for settlements; those costs may dissuade early resolution in some cases, pushing disputes into formal complaint processes with different resource implications.
There's more to this law than the bill.
Codify Laws traces every connection across the legislative lifecycle.