The Dignity and Mental Health in Jails Act, 2025 amends Ontario’s correctional statutes to prohibit practices associated with solitary confinement, bar a range of cruel or degrading treatments, and require correctional institutions to provide dedicated mental‑health support units. It imposes new duties on superintendents—explicitly tying institutional management to compliance with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms—and creates an independent review mechanism for cases of restrictive confinement.
Operationally, the bill forces changes in design, staffing and oversight: ministries and institutions will have to plan for more in‑facility mental‑health capacity, rewrite restrictive‑confinement policies, and prepare for regulatory standards and criminal liability for serious breaches. The act also gives the government broad regulation‑making authority to define restrictive confinement, set staffing and bed requirements, and stand up Independent Review Panels.
At a Glance
What It Does
Prohibits segregation‑style custody and several specified forms of cruel or degrading treatment, requires correctional institutions to include mental‑health support units, and establishes Independent Review Panels to examine restrictive confinement. It amends both the Correctional Services and Reintegration Act, 2018 and the Ministry of Correctional Services Act so the rules apply regardless of which statute is in force.
Who It Affects
Provincial correctional administrators, superintendents, front‑line correctional staff and institutional health providers, capital planners involved in new or renovated facilities, and oversight bodies responsible for review and Charter compliance. Inmates with mental‑health needs and their advocates are direct beneficiaries of the new obligations.
Why It Matters
The bill replaces segregation‑centric management with a health‑oriented framework and criminalizes certain abusive practices, creating both operational obligations and legal exposure for institutions and staff. It also shifts planning and capital priorities toward clinical capacity inside jails, while delegating many implementation details to regulations.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The act rewrites corrections practice from the ground up by substituting a set of affirmative duties and prohibitions for the old segregation regime. It adds a statutory definition of a “mental health support unit” and requires institutions to be organized to provide designated, equipped space for in‑custody mental health care; the government can set the required percentage of such beds by regulation.
At the same time, the bill removes or replaces multiple existing provisions tied to the previous segregation framework and replaces them with a restrictive confinement model that preserves most general‑population rights.
The bill lists specific categories of treatment that are forbidden whether or not they would otherwise be characterized as cruel or degrading: holding inmates in overly rigorous physical conditions, imposing surveillance beyond what is reasonably necessary, using sensory deprivation or disorientation, and punishing inmates by depriving them of food, exercise, periodic human contact or medical observation. Those prohibitions are backed by criminal sanctions in the statute; the offence language applies broadly to “every person” who contravenes the provisions, which exposes individuals and potentially institutions to prosecution.Operational authority is split across executive directions and regulations.
The Lieutenant Governor in Council is forbidden from creating a correctional institution unless the institution will include a prescribed share of mental‑health beds, and the Minister must move renovations and expansions closer to that target. Regulations will do heavy lifting: they will define restrictive confinement for the statute, prescribe the percentage of beds, set up the Independent Review Panel’s membership and process, and deal with transitional matters.
The act therefore sets policy goals while leaving many technical definitions and procedures to be developed by the government.Oversight is replaced with a formal Independent Review Panel process: rather than the old segregation review apparatus, panel reviews (as prescribed in regulations) will examine cases of restrictive confinement and make recommendations to superintendents about conditions of confinement. Superintendents also gain an explicit statutory duty to ensure compliance with the Charter; the bill makes non‑compliance an offence with a statutory maximum penalty.
The act stages its coming into force so different groups of amendments take effect either on a contingent date tied to earlier legislation or after a six‑month delay, creating a short implementation runway for the executive to prepare regulations and operational guidance.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill defines 'segregation' as custody where an inmate is highly restricted in movement and association for 22 hours or more a day.
It makes contravening the prohibitions on cruel or inhumane treatment an offence punishable on conviction by up to $100,000, up to two years’ imprisonment, or both.
The Lieutenant Governor in Council cannot establish a correctional institution unless a prescribed share of its beds are mental‑health support units; the statute specifically contemplates setting a minimum percentage by regulation.
An Independent Review Panel is required to review cases of 'restrictive confinement' (a statutory category distinct from segregation) and to make recommendations to the superintendent; the regulations will determine panel composition, quorum and review procedures.
Commencement is staggered: many of the Ministry‑level amendments take effect six months after Royal Assent, while other sections come into force only when a specified provision of earlier correctional‑reform legislation is brought into force.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
New statutory definitions for mental‑health units, segregation and restrictive confinement
The bill inserts precise statutory terms: 'mental health support unit' (a unit designated and equipped for mental‑health care), 'segregation' (22+ hours of restriction per day), and 'restrictive confinement' (a highly restricted custody shorter or less severe than segregation, to be fleshed out in regulations). Practically, those definitions redirect legal and operational analysis away from loose practice‑based concepts toward textually defined categories that will frame future policy, litigation and operational protocols.
Capacity mandate: mental‑health support units and executive limits on new facilities
The Lieutenant Governor in Council is barred from creating a correctional institution unless a prescribed percentage of beds are mental‑health support beds, and the Minister must ensure renovations/expansions move existing institutions toward that target. The provision ties capital approvals and facility licensing to a clinical capacity metric, forcing ministries to account for bed mix during planning and procurement. Because the regulations may increase the required percentage for specified institutions, the policy creates a binding floor and a mechanism for future targets without immediate numeric prescription in the statute.
Superintendent duty to ensure Charter compliance and the new offence
The superintendent’s statutory duties now explicitly include ensuring treatment complies with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The bill creates an offence for contravening that duty, which imports criminal exposure into a role traditionally governed by administrative discipline and civil oversight. Institutions will need to document practices, train staff and create decision‑records showing how measures protect Charter rights to reduce prosecutorial risk and to defend against claims.
Blanket prohibition and a short list of specifically banned practices
Beyond a general ban on cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment, the statute enumerates four categories of specifically prohibited practices: unnecessarily rigorous physical conditions, overly rigorous surveillance, sensory deprivation or disorientation, and punitive withdrawal of food, exercise, human contact or medical care. That enumerated list narrows debates about what counts as unacceptable treatment but still leaves room for interpretation at the margins—implementation will require clear institutional policies and evidentiary standards.
A wholesale move away from segregation toward restrictive‑confinement oversight
The bill repeals multiple segregation‑related provisions and replaces them with a framework that outright prohibits segregation and treats restrictive confinement as the controllable exception. Inmates in restrictive confinement retain most general‑population rights and must receive adapted access to programs and services to the least restrictive extent consistent with safety. This is an operational reorientation that requires rewriting security, program delivery and grievance processes.
Independent Review Panel mandate and expansive regulation‑making power
The Independent Review Panel is tasked to review cases of restrictive confinement 'in accordance with the regulations' and make recommendations to superintendents about conditions. The bill gives the executive broad rule‑making authority to define restrictive confinement, set required percentages for mental‑health beds, prescribe panel composition and quorum, govern review procedures, and make transitional arrangements. The extensive regulatory delegation means that many crucial operational details will be set outside the statute and subject to the usual executive rule‑making process.
Staged coming‑into‑force and transitional implications
The act stages commencement to give time for regulatory work and implementation: several Ministry amendments come into force six months after Royal Assent, while other sections only come into force contingent on a provision of earlier correctional transformation legislation. The staggered timetable creates an implementation window but also complicates planning: ministries must coordinate capital timelines, staffing upgrades and regulatory drafting across different legal effective dates.
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
- Incarcerated persons with mental‑health needs — statutory recognition of in‑facility mental‑health units and the prohibition on segregation aim to improve access to treatment, reduce exposure to extreme isolation and preserve program access.
- Families and legal advocates — the Independent Review Panel and explicit bans on specified abusive practices create clearer oversight avenues and documentation hooks for legal challenge and advocacy.
- Civil liberties and health advocacy organizations — the statutory prohibitions and the Charter duty provide stronger legal predicates for systemic oversight, research and litigation to advance care standards.
Who Bears the Cost
- Ministry of Correctional Services and provincial capital planners — the requirement to provide a prescribed share of mental‑health beds will drive capital expenditures, retrofits and operating budgets for clinical staffing and equipment.
- Superintendents and front‑line staff — the new statutory duty to ensure Charter compliance plus criminal penalties expose individuals in managerial and operational roles to legal risk, requiring new training, documentation and likely changes to use‑of‑force and surveillance protocols.
- Correctional health providers and community partners — institutions will demand more qualified mental‑health clinicians and integrated services, increasing workforce pressures and requiring new contract and care‑coordination models.
- Administrative budget lines for oversight — setting up Independent Review Panels and executing mandated reviews will create recurring administrative costs for panels, case management and report writing.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The core dilemma is between protecting dignity and mental health on one hand and preserving security and manageable operations on the other: the bill limits segregation and criminalizes abusive practices to protect inmates, but those limits remove an administrative tool used to manage dangerous behaviour, potentially shifting the burden onto medical units, transfers, or constrained staff—creating operational and legal stress unless accompanied by funded clinical capacity and carefully drafted regulations.
The bill sets policy direction but delegates many of the definitional and process details to regulation. That creates a common implementation tension: ambitious statutory objectives tied to practical outcomes (beds, panels, program access) will succeed or fail based on regulatory clarity, funding and workforce availability.
If regulations simply prescribe bed counts without concurrent staffing and program standards, institutions may meet numeric targets while failing to deliver meaningful care.
Criminalizing breaches and attaching individual exposure for failures to ensure Charter compliance raises another trade‑off. The threat of prosecution can incentivize better practices, but it can also prompt defensive behaviour by staff—over‑reliance on lockdowns framed as security decisions, reluctance to take measured corrective action, or contentious use of administrative discipline rather than clinical solutions.
Prosecuting complex institutional choices also requires standards of proof and evidentiary systems that can be hard to achieve in a corrections setting.
Finally, the statutory shift from segregation to 'restrictive confinement' depends heavily on regulatory definitions. That creates litigation risk and operational uncertainty: courts will likely be asked to interpret what constitutes 'sensory deprivation' or 'surveillance more rigorous than reasonably necessary,' and institutions will need clear recordkeeping standards to justify security measures.
The staged commencement adds a third layer of complexity, since some obligations will begin before others and coordination with prior correctional reform legislation is required.
There's more to this law than the bill.
Codify Laws traces every connection across the legislative lifecycle.