Bill 26 adds new, binding duties across Ontario post‑secondary institutions: publicly‑assisted universities, colleges of applied arts and technology and registered private career colleges must adopt employee sexual‑misconduct policies; institutions gain an explicit statutory power to discharge or discipline employees for sexual misconduct and to bar their re‑employment. The Act also voids contractual terms that would silence allegations or outcomes except in narrow, student‑initiated circumstances, and prevents adjudicators from overturning institutional discharges.
The measure creates concrete operational rules for employers in the education sector (definitions, policy content, discipline consequences and limits on settlement confidentiality) and makes a parallel set of changes to private career colleges. Separately, the Act renames Ryerson University to Toronto Metropolitan University and adjusts the university Senate’s composition and size.
Compliance officers, HR leads at institutions and lawyers advising post‑secondary employers need to know what policies, contract language and disciplinary procedures must change to conform to the new statutory regime.
At a Glance
What It Does
The Act defines “sexual misconduct” (and in some versions “sexual abuse”) and requires every covered institution to maintain an employee sexual‑misconduct policy that lists prohibited employee conduct and examples of disciplinary measures. It gives institutions clear authority to dismiss or discipline employees for such conduct, treats those dismissals as for just cause, and bars re‑employment of discharged employees.
Who It Affects
Publicly‑assisted universities and colleges of applied arts and technology, registered private career colleges, their employees (unionized and non‑unionized), students who are complainants, and parties to settlement agreements with those institutions.
Why It Matters
The Act shifts key decision‑making about employee discipline and confidentiality from courts, arbitrators and private settlements to institutions themselves and statutory rule: it narrows the role of adjudicators to avoid substituting penalties, invalidates gag terms in most agreements, and imposes minimum policy content and registration conditions on private career colleges.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The Act inserts a new statutory framework that treats certain sexual conduct by institution employees toward students as a distinct workplace offence. It supplies a working definition that covers physical sexual relations, sexualized touching, sexually‑charged remarks or behaviour, and reprisals for rejecting sexual advances — and ties that definition to existing criminal offences and Human Rights Code protections.
Institutions must adopt an employee sexual‑misconduct policy; the statute spells out the minimum content for that policy (the institution’s rules about employee–student sexual behaviour and examples of potential disciplinary measures) and allows those policies to be included within broader sexual violence policies.
When an institution concludes that an employee committed sexual misconduct against a student, the Act allows the institution to discharge or otherwise discipline the employee and declares such a discharge to be for just cause for all purposes. Employees discharged under the new regime are not entitled to notice, termination pay, or other restitution arising from the discharge, and the statute prevents arbitrators, arbitration boards or other adjudicators from substituting a lesser penalty for the institution’s chosen discipline.
The Act also bars institutions from later re‑employing an individual discharged for sexual misconduct and requires institutions to discharge any employee they re‑employ in breach of that rule.The Act prohibits agreements entered into after it comes into force from containing terms that prohibit the institution (or related persons) from disclosing that an allegation or complaint has been made that an employee committed sexual misconduct. That general prohibition is subject to a narrowly drawn exception: a confidentiality term is allowed only if the student requests it, has had a reasonable chance to obtain independent legal advice, was not unduly influenced, the agreement includes a mechanism for the student to later waive confidentiality, and the confidentiality term is time‑limited.
For registered private career colleges, having an employee sexual‑misconduct policy is made a condition of registration. Finally, the Act renames Ryerson University as Toronto Metropolitan University and increases the number of Senate members (adding a set of ex officio officers and raising total appointed seats).
The Five Things You Need to Know
The Act treats a discharge for employee sexual misconduct as automatically “for just cause,” removing entitlements to notice or termination pay following such a discharge.
Institutions are prohibited from re‑employing any employee discharged for sexual misconduct; if they do, they must immediately discharge the person and the statutory consequences re‑apply.
Contract terms (including collective agreements and settlement agreements) entered after the Act’s effective date that bar disclosure that an allegation or complaint was made are void, unless the student requests confidentiality under specific safeguards (independent legal advice, no undue influence, limited duration, and a future waiver option).
Private career colleges must have an employee sexual‑misconduct policy as a condition of registration; the policy can be standalone or part of a sexual‑violence policy and may define acts that constitute misconduct or abuse.
The Ryerson University Act is amended to continue the institution under the name Toronto Metropolitan University and to increase Senate membership (adding specified officers as ex‑officio members and raising the appointed count to 62).
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Statutory definition, discipline power, no re‑hire and policy requirement for publicly‑assisted institutions
This section creates the core regime for publicly‑assisted universities and colleges of applied arts and technology. It defines the covered institutions and what counts as sexual misconduct (linking to Criminal Code and Human Rights Code provisions), gives institutions the explicit power to discharge or discipline employees for that misconduct, and makes such discipline conclusively treated as for just cause. It also obliges each institution to adopt an employee sexual‑misconduct policy that, at minimum, sets out prohibited employee–student sexual behaviour and examples of disciplinary measures. Practically, this centralizes disciplinary authority at the institution and converts internal policies into instruments with statutory backing.
Voids confidentiality terms that silence allegations, with a narrow student‑consent exception
The Schedule voids contractual terms—whether in collective agreements, settlement deals, or employment contracts—that would bar the institution (or related persons) from disclosing that an allegation or complaint has been made about employee sexual misconduct. The statute includes a student‑driven exception: confidentiality is permitted only if the student specifically requests it, had a reasonable opportunity for independent legal advice, was not unduly influenced, the agreement includes a process allowing the student to later waive confidentiality, and the confidentiality period is limited. This provision constrains settlement drafting and post‑case nondisclosure practices.
Precludes adjudicators from substituting a lesser penalty for institutional dismissals
The Act expressly disapplies any provision that would allow arbitrators, arbitration boards or other adjudicators to impose a different penalty than the institution’s chosen discipline for sexual misconduct, despite contrary rules in the Labour Relations Act and the Colleges Collective Bargaining Act. That limits third‑party review remedies and narrows the scope of post‑discipline arbitration challenges.
Parallel regime for private career colleges and registration condition
Schedule 2 inserts mostly parallel provisions into the Private Career Colleges Act. It defines sexual misconduct for private career colleges, allows dismissal for such misconduct (treated as for just cause), bars re‑employment of discharged employees, voids silencers in agreements subject to the same student‑consent exception, and makes having an employee sexual‑misconduct policy a condition of registration for private career colleges. For the private sector, registration dependency creates a lever for enforcement.
Renaming Ryerson to Toronto Metropolitan University and changing Senate composition
Schedule 3 amends the Ryerson Act to continue the university under the name Toronto Metropolitan University, replaces occurrences of the old name in related Acts, and changes Senate membership by adding key officers (Chancellor, President, Vice‑Presidents, Deputy Provost, Vice‑Provosts, Deans, Chief Librarian and Registrar) as ex‑officio members and increasing the total number of (appointed) senators from 51 to 62. This is a governance and branding change embedded in statute.
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
- Students who are victims or complainants — the Act strengthens institutional ability to take immediate disciplinary action, forbids re‑hire of discharged perpetrators, and limits the use of gag provisions that can conceal allegations or outcomes.
- University and college administrators — institutions receive clearer statutory authority to dismiss and discipline employees for sexual misconduct and protection against adjudicators reducing institutional sanctions.
- Regulatory overseers of private career colleges — making policy adoption a registration condition gives regulators a direct compliance lever and should improve baseline protections across the private‑career sector.
Who Bears the Cost
- Employees accused of sexual misconduct — the statutory regime narrows procedural protections available through arbitration, treats discharge as for just cause, and removes entitlement to notice or termination pay upon dismissal for misconduct.
- Institutions’ HR and legal teams — drafting, approving and implementing compliant policies, training decision‑makers, and ensuring settlement and employment contracts conform to the new voiding rules will require resources and possibly new legal exposure during transition.
- Unions and collective bargaining representatives — the Act overrides certain collective‑agreement protections and limits arbitrators’ remedial powers, which may require renegotiation of other protections or grievance handling procedures.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is between empowering institutions to act swiftly and decisively to protect students (by treating dismissals as for just cause and voiding silencers) and safeguarding procedural fairness for accused employees and collective‑bargaining rights (by restricting adjudicative review and removing some traditional contractual protections). The Act resolves this in favour of student protection and institutional authority, but that choice forces difficult trade‑offs in evidentiary standards, investigative resources and labour relations.
The Act creates operational clarity but raises implementation questions. It gives institutions decisive authority to dismiss employees for sexual misconduct and prevents adjudicators from substituting lesser penalties; that reduces post‑discipline litigation risk on one axis but increases the evidentiary and procedural burdens institutions face because their decisions are now final in terms of penalty.
Institutions will need robust, fair investigative processes (and documentation) to defend against wrongful‑dismissal and human‑rights claims while operating under a rule that treats their discipline as for just cause.
The confidentiality prohibition removes a widely used tool for resolving disputes quietly; the student‑consent carve‑out narrows the circumstances where silence remains possible, but the legal‑advice and undue‑influence safeguards will generate contested factual issues in settlement negotiations. Making policy adoption a registration condition for private career colleges centralizes oversight but may strain administrative capacity at the regulator and small private colleges.
Finally, the statute’s interaction with unionized settings is uneven: while it expressly overrides contractual conflict, it does not provide new statutory procedures for grievance handling, which will leave parties negotiating how discipline, investigatory standards and union rights coexist under the new legal hierarchy.
There's more to this law than the bill.
Codify Laws traces every connection across the legislative lifecycle.