Bill 239, the Gender-based Violence Prevention Act, amends multiple Nova Scotia statutes and adds a Schedule that enacts a provincial Clare’s Law titled the Disclosure to Protect against Domestic Violence Act. The bill expands statutory definitions of domestic and family violence to explicitly include coercive and controlling behaviour, reproductive coercion and digital forms of abuse; it also clarifies that domestic violence may be found to have occurred regardless of criminal charges or convictions.
The Schedule creates a disclosure regime and a role for the Attorney General (the “Minister”) to prepare threat assessments, obtain personal and health information from public and private sources, and disclose risk information under a Disclosure Protocol. The bill mandates new training for justices of the peace, judges and frontline police and government staff, requires legislative appropriations to pay for those programs, and contains broad regulatory authority, immunities and confidentiality rules.
It comes into force January 1, 2027.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill enacts a Clare’s Law-style Disclosure Act that lets applicants request safety-related information about an intimate partner and authorizes the Attorney General to prepare and disclose threat assessments. It widens statutory definitions of domestic and family violence, mandates training for justices of the peace and judges, and requires the Legislature to appropriate funds for education programs.
Who It Affects
Survivors and people concerned about intimate-partner risk, police services, the Department of Justice/Attorney General’s office, courts and judges, health and social service providers, and any public body that may be required to provide records or authorize access to records under the Act.
Why It Matters
The bill creates a formal disclosure pathway and statutory threat-assessment function with powers to collect sensitive personal and health information — a substantive shift in how government can gather and share data to manage intimate‑partner risk. It also places new, funded training obligations on the justice system and police, changing operational duties and privacy compliance requirements across government and policing bodies.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The Schedule — Nova Scotia’s Clare’s Law — gives people who fear an intimate partner may be dangerous a structured way to seek safety-related information. An applicant can apply to a police service for disclosure information under a Disclosure Protocol set by regulation; police may also provide disclosure information proactively to a person identified as “a person at risk.” The Disclosure Protocol will set how disclosure material is safeguarded and the conditions that restrict further use or sharing of that material.
The Attorney General is empowered to prepare threat assessments that describe an individual’s risk of perpetrating violence and recommend mitigation steps. Those assessments may be shared with government departments, courts, police services, correctional institutions and other entities listed in regulation.
To support threat assessments, the Minister can require departments, police and other named entities to provide or authorize access to personal and health information and records; regulations can specify formats, timelines and even measures to compel production or access to premises and databases.The bill builds privacy and confidentiality rules alongside those powers. Disclosure recipients must follow the Disclosure Protocol, the identity of applicants is privileged unless the Minister authorizes release, and recipients are generally not compellable to give evidence about information obtained under the Act.
At the same time, the Act grants broad immunity from civil actions to the Minister, police, recipients of threat assessments and entities that provide information under the law for anything done under the Act.Beyond the disclosure regime, the bill revises the Domestic Violence Intervention Act and the Parenting and Support Act to broaden the legal definitions of domestic and family violence — expressly capturing coercive control, reproductive coercion and digital abuse — and adds a provision clarifying that a finding of domestic violence does not depend on criminal charges or convictions. It requires mandatory training: the Department of Justice must establish courses for designated justices of the peace, the Chief Judge must set and report on judicial courses covering sexual-assault law, coercive control and trauma-informed practice, and the Minister must run a police-and-staff training program to link disclosure with referrals and safety planning.
Those education measures must be funded from money appropriated by the Legislature.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The Schedule creates a statutory Clare’s Law: police may disclose “disclosure information” to applicants and to identified persons at risk under a Disclosure Protocol set by regulation.
The Minister may prepare threat assessments describing an individual’s risk and may disclose them to courts, police, correctional authorities, government bodies and others identified in regulation.
The Minister can require departments, police services and other prescribed entities to provide, or authorize Ministerial access to, personal and health information and records; regulations may allow measures including premises access, database access and production orders.
Section 11 grants broad immunity from civil action for the Minister, police services, recipients of threat assessments and entities that supply information under the Act; Section 13 makes those actors generally non-compellable to testify or produce files, with limited exceptions.
The bill mandates mandatory training for designated justices of the peace and judges, requires a provincially run training program for police and staff (with trauma-informed and referral components), ties funding for these programs to legislative appropriations, and sets a commencement date of January 1, 2027.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Citation and start date
Clause 1 gives the Act its short title. The Schedule—in which the Disclosure to Protect against Domestic Violence Act is enacted—specifies that the new disclosure regime comes into force on January 1, 2027. That fixed commencement date gives government agencies a window to prepare regulations, protocols, IT and training before the law becomes operative.
Broader statutory definition of domestic violence
Clause 3 replaces the Domestic Violence Intervention Act’s definition of “domestic violence” to explicitly include coercive and controlling behaviour, reproductive coercion and digital forms of abuse, and lists concrete examples (financial abuse, threats to animals or property, failure to provide necessaries, etc.). By including conduct that may not be criminal, the provision lowers the litigation threshold for civil remedies and administrative responses and signals a shift toward risk‑based intervention rather than prosecution‑dependent responses.
Clarifying that domestic violence can be found regardless of criminal charges
Clause 4 substitutes section 5 to state that domestic violence may be found to have occurred for the purposes of the Act even where no charge was laid or where charges were dismissed or withdrawn, and regardless of convictions. This separates civil or administrative findings used to trigger protections from criminal-process outcomes and affects evidentiary expectations in civil and family settings.
Mandatory education and reporting for the judiciary and funding requirement
Clause 5 adds a mandatory course requirement for designated justices of the peace on coercive control and emergency protection orders, and Clause 8 adds a schedule of course topics for newly appointed and incumbent judges, including sexual-assault law, coercive control, trauma-informed practice and systemic discrimination. The Chief Judge must annually report course titles, topics and attendance to the Attorney General, who tables the report. Clauses 6 and 9 require that money for those programs be paid from legislative appropriations, turning the training into a funded, accountable obligation rather than an unfunded recommendation.
How Clare’s Law will operate and the immediate safeguards
The Schedule creates the application pathway: an applicant who believes they are at risk may seek disclosure information; third parties may assist; and police services may provide disclosure under a Disclosure Protocol. The Protocol must set terms for safeguarding information and prohibit subsequent uses unrelated to the Act, except with consent or as authorized by law. The Schedule also ensures trauma‑informed practices, requires police to offer referrals to gender‑based violence services at disclosure, and protects applicants from evidence-use against them in family and child‑protection proceedings.
Ministerial threat assessments and powers to obtain records
The Minister may prepare threat assessments and disclose them to a wide set of recipients; in doing so the Minister can collect, use and disclose personal and health information. Section 6 authorizes the Minister to require departments, police and prescribed entities to provide records or authorize ongoing access; section 18 lets regulations specify compelled measures (premises access, production of records, database access, inquiries, court orders). That combination creates a powerful, regulatory‑backed information‑gathering tool for assessing risk.
Privileges, limits on disclosure, and legal protections for actors
The Schedule designates applicant identity as privileged unless the Minister permits disclosure, forbids unauthorized disclosure of disclosure information, and prevents such information from being used against applicants in family or child-protection proceedings. It also shields the Minister, police, recipients of threat assessments and information providers from civil actions for conduct under the Act and makes those actors generally non‑compellable to give evidence or produce protocol files, with narrowly defined exceptions for judicial review and certain threat‑assessment information.
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 fearing intimate‑partner or family violence — the Act creates a formal route to request safety‑relevant information, offers referrals and safety‑planning supports, and bars the use of having applied (or not acting on disclosures) as evidence in family or child‑protection courts.
- Survivor‑support organizations and specialized front‑line workers — the law requires trauma‑informed referrals at disclosure and contemplates consultation with survivors and equity‑seeking communities when designing judicial education, creating clearer integration points for service providers.
- Provincial courts and judges — mandatory and reported judicial education aims to raise baseline competence on coercive control, sexual‑assault law and systemic discrimination, which may improve judicial decision‑making in family and protection proceedings.
Who Bears the Cost
- Department of Justice / Attorney General — the Minister’s office must build threat‑assessment capacity, run disclosure processes, draft and administer regulations, and likely staff access/appeals; regulations and delegated powers expand administrative duties.
- Police services (especially municipal and RCMP detachments) — police must implement the Disclosure Protocol, process applications, coordinate with the Minister on disclosure, and handle safeguarding, with attendant operational and IT costs.
- Other public bodies and health providers — the Minister can require records or ongoing access to personal and health information; responding to requests, authorizing access and complying with production or premises‑access measures will impose compliance, privacy‑law and operational burdens, potentially requiring legal review or additional staffing.
- The Legislature (taxpayers) — Clauses 6, 9 and Schedule s.20 require that training and program costs be paid from money appropriated by the Legislature, creating a budgetary obligation that competes with other priorities.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is between preventing gender‑based and intimate‑partner violence through proactive information‑sharing and threat assessment, and protecting privacy, procedural fairness and accountability: the Act gives government strong, regulatory powers to collect and share sensitive data — powers that can materially improve safety planning but that also curtail ordinary legal remedies and concentrate discretion in the executive branch.
The bill stacks strong information‑gathering powers and operational immunities on top of a privacy‑sensitive disclosure regime. That design will speed risk‑based responses but raises familiar trade‑offs: broad authority to access personal and health records plus regulatory measures to enter premises and access databases increases the chance of overreach, data breaches, or mission creep if regulations are poorly constrained.
The Act leaves many details — who qualifies as a person at risk, the precise content of disclosure information, timelines for responses and the standards for threat assessments — to the Governor in Council and Ministerial regulations, which concentrates substantive rule‑making power in the executive and makes implementation choices determinative of civil‑liberties outcomes.
Immunity and non‑compellability reduce litigation risk for actors but also limit judicial scrutiny and private remedies when disclosures or assessments cause harm. The privilege and confidentiality provisions protect applicants, but the Minister can waive that privilege; the criteria for doing so are not set in the Act.
Finally, while the bill ties training programs to legislative appropriations, it does not set specific funding levels or timelines for rolling out IT, data‑sharing agreements or the threat‑assessment workforce, creating a risk that operationalization will lag the statute’s intent or vary significantly across regions and police services.
There's more to this law than the bill.
Codify Laws traces every connection across the legislative lifecycle.