Bill 119 is an omnibus Ontario statute that enacts two new standalone Acts (Enforcement of Canadian Restraining Orders Act, 2026; Pill Presses and Precursors Act, 2026) and amends a broad set of provincial laws covering policing, adoption, victim remedies, administrative enforcement and provincial offences. The changes range from procedural reforms (new approval regimes for adoption practitioners, Director‑level discretion over intercountry placement terms, and new directives powers for the Minister of Solicitor General) to substantive criminal‑law adjacent measures (a provincial offence for pill presses and expanded sex‑offender registry rules).
For legal and compliance professionals the bill matters because it creates new administrative decision points (non‑appealable Director discretion in several places), adds operational and reporting duties for police services and licensing bodies, re‑establishes a formal administrative pathway to have debts declared “coerced debts” for trafficking victims, and introduces criminal and administrative penalties with direct operational consequences for adoption agencies, private security firms, municipalities and businesses dealing in equipment or chemicals that can be used to produce illicit drugs.
At a Glance
What It Does
The Act enacts two new statutes (a restraining‑order enforcement Act and a pill‑presses Act) and amends multiple provincial Acts to: expand Ministerial directive powers over police boards and strategic plans; create Director approvals and licence terms for intercountry adoption work; re‑enact and expand coercive‑debt remedies for human trafficking victims, including a simplified adjudicator process; and require public posting and procedural rules for certain policing disclosures.
Who It Affects
Directly affected actors include adoption licensees and newly‑approved adoption practitioners, police service boards and chiefs, the Inspector General and Police Commissioner, creditors and designated victim‑support organizations, municipalities implementing planning by‑law penalties, and anyone manufacturing, selling or possessing pill presses or regulated precursors.
Why It Matters
The bill shifts several gatekeeping decisions from tribunals to Ministerial or Director discretion, institutes new administrative enforcement pathways and public disclosure mechanisms for policing matters, and centralizes a procedural system to relieve victims of coerced debts — changes that will alter compliance, reporting, licensing and risk‑management practices across multiple sectors.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
This omnibus Act stitches together discrete reforms under a single title. It creates two new statutes: the Enforcement of Canadian Restraining Orders Act, 2026 (which treats restraining orders issued by other Canadian provinces or territories as Ontario court orders and provides a registration route and a Family Court procedure to vary or set aside them) and the Pill Presses and Precursors Act, 2026 (which criminalizes certain uses, possession and sales of pill presses and regulated precursors, requires reporting of stolen presses, authorizes police identification directions, and sets out seizure and forfeiture rules).
On adoption, the bill adds Director‑issued ‘approvals to act as an adoption practitioner’ (new s.191.1 and s.7.1) so only approved individuals (or those locally approved before the change) may prepare homestudies and follow‑up reports; it requires licence applicants for placement of non‑Canadian children to obtain specific licence terms from a Director and gives the Director discretionary authority to refuse or suspend such terms on public‑interest grounds (with limited appeal rights to the Tribunal in some circumstances). It also creates binding Director directives and compliance orders for licensees facilitating intercountry adoptions.Policing and oversight changes expand the statutory definitions of misconduct to include prescribed persons, allow the Minister to issue directives that police boards must reflect in strategic plans, authorize publication of certain personal information on a Commissioner‑maintained public website (with correction and removal procedures), permit RCMP and other out‑of‑province peace officers to exercise prescribed Ontario powers, and broaden the Inspector General’s complaint management and disclosure authorities.
Several procedural changes reallocate investigatory costs, permit consolidation of complaints, and strengthen reporting duties to the Minister and Inspector General.The bill also re‑enacts Part IV of the Prevention of and Remedies for Human Trafficking Act, 2017 concerning coerced debts. It establishes a multi‑step process: designated organizations review referrals from funded service providers and can notify creditors to pause collections; if contested and the debt is below small‑claims thresholds an adjudicator can make a final written determination, while larger disputes go to the Superior Court.
When a debt is declared coerced, creditors must notify consumer reporting agencies and licensing authorities, courts lose civil enforcement power over that portion of a court‑imposed debt, and licensing authorities must restore or reconsider licences without charging fees tied to the coerced debt.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill creates the Pill Presses and Precursors Act, 2026, making possession, sale or use of pill presses or precursors in prohibited circumstances an offence with fines up to $250,000 and/or up to two years’ imprisonment.
Directors gain power to grant, refuse or suspend licence terms permitting intercountry adoptions (or placement of non‑Canadian children) based on a public‑interest test that is explicitly non‑appealable in some cases.
Part IV for coerced debts is re‑enacted to let designated organizations pause collections, trigger written notices to creditors, and route disputed claims to either an adjudicator (written process for claims within small‑claims limits) or the Superior Court for larger amounts.
The Community Safety and Policing Act is amended to let the Minister issue binding directives that police service boards must reflect in strategic plans, and to require the Commissioner to publish certain disclosed personal information on a public website with statutory correction and removal rules.
The Enforcement of Canadian Restraining Orders Act deems restraining orders from other Canadian jurisdictions to be Ontario court orders and allows parties habitually resident or present in Ontario to apply under Family Law Rules to vary or set them aside.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Approval regime for adoption practitioners and locked‑room rules
The Schedule introduces a Director‑issued approval to act as an adoption practitioner (s.191.1) and makes those approvals the standard for who may prepare homestudies and follow‑up reports. Approvals have durations, can carry directed remedial steps (training, plans) and can be suspended or revoked for non‑compliance. Separately, the Act explicitly permits placing a young person in a locked room in secure custody or temporary detention where regulations prescribe the circumstances, procedures and standards — shifting key safeguards to regulation and Director oversight.
Extending registry application and mandatory retention rules
The Act’s scope expands to include persons subject to federal orders or obligations to register under the Sex Offender Information Registration Act (Canada). Reporting obligations are tied to the federal registration period, transitional rules cover pre‑existing obligations, and the statute removes the old ‘pardon’ deletion framework in favour of a regulations‑driven duty on the Minister to destroy and permanently remove registry information where required — a shift from statutory deletion mechanics to regulatory implementation and administrative control.
Ministerial directives, complaint handling and public disclosure
This Schedule gives the Minister authority to issue directives to police service boards that must be reflected in strategic plans and to require Inspector General investigations in certain approvals or dissolutions. It broadens who counts as a prescribed person for misconduct, authorizes consolidation of complaints, retools when and how complaints are forwarded to the Minister, and establishes a statutory duty for the Commissioner to publish certain personal information online where a chief of police reasonably believes publication will reduce a significant risk — with built‑in notice, correction and removal procedures set to regulations.
Home‑province restraining orders treated as Ontario court orders
The new standalone Act deems restraining orders made in other Canadian provinces or territories to be Ontario court orders, enforceable as such, and creates a registration process with the Ontario court. A party habitually resident or present in Ontario can apply under Family Law Rules to vary or set aside a final non‑Ontario restraining order; the Ontario court may refuse if it decides another jurisdiction is more appropriate. The schedule also amends the Courts of Justice Act to locate these applications in the Family Court where it sits.
Licence terms, binding directives and compliance orders for intercountry adoption
Mirroring Schedule 1’s adoption changes, this Schedule centralizes Director control over which licence holders may facilitate adoptions from specific countries via discrete licence terms (s.8.2). It creates binding Director directives (s.18.1) and statutory compliance orders (s.18.2) that licensees must obey, and authorizes suspension of country‑specific terms where safeguards in the foreign country pose an imminent threat to children, with limited tribunal appeal rights preserved except where the Director’s public‑interest discretion applies.
New provincial offence regime for pill presses, precursors and proceeds
This standalone Act defines ‘pill press’ and ‘precursor’ and criminalizes use, possession and sale where tied to Controlled Drugs and Substances Act contraventions, creates an offence for possession of proceeds, mandates reporting of stolen presses, and gives police limited powers to require identification, perform exigent searches and seize evidence. The Act sets stiff penalties (fines to $250,000 and/or up to two years’ imprisonment) and a two‑year limitation on proceedings.
Coerced‑debt framework: designated organizations, adjudicators and remediation duties
Part IV is re‑enacted and expanded to define coerced debts, require designated organizations (government‑funded, experienced service providers) to review referrals and notify creditors to pause collection, and to create a two‑track dispute resolution system: written adjudicator determinations for claims within small‑claims limits and Superior Court applications for larger claims. When a debt is established as coerced, creditors must notify consumer reporting agencies, collection agencies and licensing authorities; court‑imposed debts become unenforceable to the extent of the coerced amount, and licensing authorities must reinstate or reconsider licences without charging fees tied to the coerced debt.
Municipal administrative penalties tied to tax roll collection
Local municipalities gain express authority to impose non‑punitive administrative penalties for by‑law breaches relating to land‑use restrictions and to treat unpaid penalties as municipal debts collectible via the tax roll if unpaid within 15 days. The Minister may regulate details of penalty systems and impose conditions on municipal use of the power, creating a new municipal enforcement tool that substitutes administrative fines for provincial offences in certain cases.
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
- Victims of human trafficking — The re‑established coerced‑debt regime gives victims a formal pathway (designated organizations and adjudicators) to have debts declared coerced, pause collection and limit consumer‑reporting or licensing consequences tied to debts incurred through trafficking.
- Parties protected by non‑Ontario restraining orders — They gain enforceability in Ontario without re‑litigation in every case, and an accessible registration route; Ontario courts can also vary or set aside orders when appropriate.
- Municipalities — Local governments gain a faster, administrative tool to enforce land‑use by‑laws and to recover unpaid penalties through the tax roll, reducing reliance on provincial prosecutions or lengthy court processes.
- Police oversight actors and public safety officials — The Minister, Inspector General and Commissioner receive expanded powers and statutory tools (directives, consolidated complaints, public‑website disclosure) to set priorities, monitor trends and communicate risk‑related information.
Who Bears the Cost
- Adoption licensees and practitioners — New approval requirements, Director‑issued directives, country‑specific licence terms and discretionary refusals/suspensions increase compliance obligations and operational uncertainty for agencies facilitating intercountry or non‑resident placements.
- Police services and boards — They must reflect Ministerial directives in strategic plans, respond to expanded complaint handling regimes, provide more information to oversight bodies and potentially face costs for investigations and public disclosure processes.
- Creditors and collection agencies — If debts are declared coerced they lose collection rights over that portion, must comply with designated‑organization notices, update consumer reports, and face criminal or administrative sanctions for improper attempts to collect.
- Businesses dealing in pill presses or regulated precursors — New criminal prohibitions, reporting duties for theft and broad seizure powers increase compliance, risk of criminal exposure and potential forfeiture of equipment.
- Provincial ministries and regulators — The Act depends heavily on delegated regulations (standards for locked rooms, publication/correction/removal rules for policing disclosures, adjudicator procedures, designated‑organization criteria), requiring administrative funding and rule‑making capacity.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is balancing quicker, centralized administrative control and public‑safety transparency against procedural fairness, privacy and rule‑of‑law safeguards: giving Ministers and Directors broad discretion and public‑interest grounds for non‑appealable decisions speeds government action but risks arbitrary or opaque outcomes for adoption applicants, licence holders and individuals whose personal information is publicly disclosed.
The bill pushes many consequential choices into delegated regulations and into unconstrained Director or Minister discretion. For example, who may facilitate intercountry adoptions from a specific country now depends not only on statutory criteria but on the Director’s view of the public interest; where the Act preserves no right of appeal the practical effect is a powerful administrative gatekeeper whose decisions will be guided largely by policy and regulation rather than adjudicative review.
That creates speed and flexibility for government, but raises procedural‑fairness and transparency questions for agencies and prospective parents.
The coercive‑debt framework depends on designated organizations, adjudicators and a regulatory architecture that must be funded, staffed and detailed by regulation. Key operational matters — timeframes for creditor responses, the scope of information shared with consumer reporting agencies, anonymization standards for published adjudicator determinations, and coordination with PPSA enforcement — are left to regulation.
If regulations lag or funding is insufficient, the protections will underperform and creditors will face legal uncertainty about when enforcement is barred. Similarly, the public‑website disclosure powers under the policing regime create a friction point between public‑safety transparency and privacy/defamation risk; the statute delegates correction and removal rules to regulation but imposes criminal or civil exposure only indirectly, leaving administrators to craft mitigation rules that still may invite litigation.
Finally, several enforcement measures raise implementation and constitutional risk vectors: the Pill Presses Act authorizes exigent searches, identification directions and heavy forfeiture rules that may attract Charter challenges if applied without adequate safeguards; locked‑room authority for young people transfers critical safeguards to regulation (standards, procedures, review) that must be robust to avoid human‑rights or child‑welfare litigation. Overall, the bill solves discrete operational problems but creates administrative discretion, resource demands and regulatory dependencies that will determine whether its reforms work as intended.
There's more to this law than the bill.
Codify Laws traces every connection across the legislative lifecycle.