The Disclosure to Protect Against Intimate Partner Violence Act creates a statutory pathway for police services in Prince Edward Island to provide “risk information” — a police assessment of the likelihood an intimate partner will commit violence plus recommended safety measures — to a person identified as being at risk. The bill authorizes police to make disclosures either after an application by the person at risk (or certain third parties acting with consent) or proactively when a police service identifies someone as at risk.
It also bars routine release of an intimate partner’s personal information, requires recipients to sign an undertaking limiting further use, and requires police to give information about support services.
The regime is narrowly focused on safety planning but packs several operational choices: it leaves risk‑assessment methodology, designated third‑party applicants, notification procedures, and the form of disclosures to regulation and police protocols; establishes a criminal offence for improper use or disclosure with a summary fine up to $10,000; and shields police and the government from civil liability for good‑faith acts under the Act. Those design choices create implementation questions for police, privacy officers, and service providers about standards, training, recordkeeping, and safeguards against misuse or inconsistent application.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill permits police services to disclose assessed ‘risk information’ — an evaluation of the risk posed by an intimate partner plus mitigation recommendations — to persons the police determine to be at risk or to applicants acting for them. It requires recipients to sign an undertaking limiting use and generally forbids disclosure of an intimate partner’s personal information unless public or otherwise lawful.
Who It Affects
Directly affects police services and their frontline members, people identified as being at risk of intimate‑partner violence and the support organizations and designated third parties (e.g., advocates) that apply on their behalf, plus privacy officers who must reconcile this scheme with existing access and privacy rules. The provincial government will also administer regulations defining designated persons, assessment methods and notification standards.
Why It Matters
This creates a formal, legislated mechanism for safety‑planning information that many jurisdictions leave to ad hoc practice, while delegating key technical choices to regulation and police protocols. That split gives police flexibility but raises consistency, privacy and resource questions that will determine whether the law meaningfully changes safety outcomes in practice.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The Act defines ‘risk information’ as a police assessment of how likely an intimate partner is to commit violence and recommendations to reduce that risk. A person who believes they may be at risk can apply to a police service for that information; alternatively, a police service may itself identify someone as a person at risk and provide the information.
The law allows an application by the person at risk, by a ‘‘designated person’’ acting with consent, or by a decision‑maker where the person cannot consent or is a minor. The Act authorizes police to consider a broad array of verifiable inputs — criminal charges or convictions, investigative information, previous interactions with police, and information from the person or third parties — when assessing risk.
When police decide to disclose, the bill directs disclosure to occur, subject to regulations, verbally and in person; it expressly forbids routine disclosure of an intimate partner’s personal information except where that information is public or its release is otherwise lawful. Before receiving risk information, the recipient must sign an undertaking not to use or further disclose it except for safety planning.
Police must also provide information about support services at the time of disclosure.The Act builds in legal protections for police action and limits external compulsion: police and their agents cannot be compelled to give evidence or produce files in judicial proceedings about information obtained under the Act, although that non‑compellability does not block judicial review of decisions under the Act. The statute makes unauthorized use or disclosure of information obtained under the Act an offence punishable by up to a $10,000 summary fine and shields the government and police from civil suits for good‑faith actions under the law.
Finally, the Lieutenant Governor in Council may make broad regulations to define designated persons, consent rules, refusal circumstances, assessment and disclosure methods, and undertakings, and the Act comes into force by proclamation.
The Five Things You Need to Know
An application for risk information can be made by the person at risk, a designated person with the person’s consent, or by a statutory decision‑maker for someone incapable or under 18.
Police may proactively identify a person at risk and disclose risk information without a prior application.
A police service may refuse or discontinue an application if the applicant fails to establish a reason to believe the person is at risk, intends to use the information for an improper purpose, the application is frivolous or vexatious, or the police cannot confirm the at‑risk person’s identity (with other prescribed grounds possible).
Disclosures must be verbal and in person (subject to regulations), require the recipient to sign an undertaking limiting use and disclosure, and must be accompanied by information about support services.
Unauthorized use or disclosure of information obtained under the Act is a summary offence with a maximum fine of $10,000; the Act also bars civil suits against the government or police for good‑faith acts under the legislation.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Definitions — who and what the Act covers
Section 1 sets the vocabulary that drives the rest of the scheme: it defines ‘intimate partner,’ ‘intimate partner violence,’ ‘person at risk,’ ‘risk information,’ ‘designated person,’ police service, Minister and personal information (by cross‑reference to PEI’s FOIPP Act). That cross‑reference matters because it limits the Act’s own definition of personal information and forces a reconciliation with existing privacy law when the police assess and disclose information.
Purpose and administration — ministerial role and guidance
Section 2 frames the Act narrowly around safe access to risk information while protecting partner privacy; Section 3 assigns administration to the Minister of Justice and permits the Minister to adopt administrative guidelines or protocols. Practically, that gives the Ministry a steering role over implementation without prescribing technical standards in the statute — it relies on the Minister’s guidelines and later regulations to supply operational detail.
Application and grounds for disclosure
Section 4 creates a dual pathway: disclosure can follow an application or a police‑initiated identification. The section specifies who may apply — the person at risk; a designated person with consent; or a decision‑maker for an incapable person or minor — and lists explicit grounds on which police may refuse or discontinue an application (no reason to believe risk exists, intended improper use, frivolous/vexatious application, failure to confirm identity, and other prescribed circumstances). It also requires prescribed notice to applicants when refusals occur, preserving the applicant’s right to reapply later.
Evidence and inputs for assessing risk
Section 5 authorizes police to rely on verifiable sources — convictions, charges, investigative information, prior police interactions and information from the person or third parties — when determining risk and recommending mitigations. That provision is procedural: it does not mandate a particular risk‑assessment tool or threshold, but it does explicitly sanction the use of investigative and interactional history in assessments, which may affect what records police draw on and how they document decisions.
How disclosures are made and limited
Section 6 directs that disclosed risk information be provided verbally and in person, subject to regulations, and forbids disclosure of an intimate partner’s personal information except where public or otherwise lawful. It requires recipients to complete an undertaking limiting use and obliges police to provide information about support services. The in‑person/verbal requirement prioritizes confidentiality and immediacy in safety planning but also creates operational constraints (scheduling, rural access, recordkeeping) that regulations may later modify.
Evidentiary protection, prohibition and liability limits
Section 7 shields police and their agents from being compelled to testify or produce documents about applications, assessments or disclosures under the Act, with an explicit carve‑out for judicial review. Section 8 makes improper use or disclosure an offence with a maximum $10,000 summary fine and prohibits non‑authorized sharing; Section 9 bars civil actions against the Crown or police for good‑faith acts under the Act. Together these provisions trade external accountability mechanisms for stronger confidentiality and operational protection for police carrying out sensitive disclosures.
Regulations and commencement
Section 10 grants broad regulatory authority to the Lieutenant Governor in Council over who qualifies as a designated person, consent rules, refuse/discontinue circumstances, assessment and disclosure methods, the form of the undertaking, and any other matter needed to implement the Act. Section 11 makes commencement by proclamation. The breadth of regulation‑making authority means many of the Act’s practical limits — who can act on behalf of survivors, minimum standards for assessments, and notification processes — will be set by regulation rather than the statute itself.
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 identified as being at risk of intimate‑partner violence: the Act gives them statutory access to an evidence‑based police assessment and concrete mitigation recommendations to inform safety planning and decisions about housing, supports, or legal steps.
- Designated third‑party advocates and service providers (shelters, IPV caseworkers): when designated in regulations they can apply on behalf of clients with consent, streamlining access to police assessments and embedding police information into coordinated safety planning.
- Support organizations and social services: the requirement that police provide information about support services with disclosures helps link risk information directly to available supports, improving coordinated responses and potentially reducing immediate danger.
- Police services: the Act provides explicit statutory authority to disclose risk information, a protective duty framework, and immunity from civil suits for good‑faith actions, which can reduce legal uncertainty that previously discouraged sharing.
- Decision‑makers for incapable persons and parents/guardians: the Act permits safety planning on behalf of vulnerable adults and minors by recognized decision‑makers, enabling protective interventions when the person at risk cannot consent.
Who Bears the Cost
- Police services and frontline officers: will bear the administrative, training and recordkeeping burden of assessing risk, conducting in‑person disclosures, managing undertakings, and documenting refusals and decisions; rural detachments may face particular logistical strain.
- Privacy officers and records custodians: must reconcile this disclosure regime with FOIPP obligations, decide what investigative material is ‘verifiable’, and implement controls against improper disclosure.
- Designated persons and service providers: if regulations designate third parties, those organizations will carry consent‑management responsibilities and potential liability exposures when acting for clients.
- Intimate partners subject to assessment: although the Act limits disclosure of personal information, intimate partners face increased surveillance through police assessments and potential reputational or privacy impacts if information becomes public through other means.
- Provincial government: will need to draft detailed regulations, fund training and possibly resource police capacity to conduct assessments and safe disclosures, triggering implementation costs not specified in the statute.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is straightforward: the Act empowers police to share assessed risk information quickly to protect potential victims, but doing so requires restricting access to intimate partners’ personal information and insulating police from certain forms of accountability; the result is a trade‑off between rapid, confidential safety planning and the privacy, transparency and consistency safeguards that limit misuse and ensure fair treatment.
The Act balances survivor safety and partner privacy by creating a new pathway for police disclosures but delegates most technical choices to regulations and police protocols. That delegation speeds legislative passage and provides operational flexibility, but it risks inconsistent implementation across police services: without minimum statutory standards for how risk is measured, different forces could reach different conclusions on materially similar facts.
The Act’s explicit cross‑reference to the FOIPP definition of personal information means privacy law will constrain what police record and disclose, yet the statute’s prohibition and criminal penalty for improper disclosure create a high‑stakes compliance environment where honest errors could trigger enforcement or discipline.
Several practical tensions remain unresolved. The in‑person and verbal disclosure default favors confidentiality and immediate safety planning but may limit access for people in remote communities or those who cannot safely attend a police station; regulations could permit alternative methods, but that shifts the trade‑off to delegated rule‑making.
The non‑compellability protections and civil immunity are intended to enable candid police action, yet they also reduce transparency and external oversight: victims or third parties may find it difficult to challenge assessments or obtain the underlying records, with judicial review as the narrow avenue for recourse. Finally, the Act assumes police have the capacity to carry out timely, trauma‑informed risk assessments and to coordinate with social supports — an assumption that will determine whether the statute improves outcomes or simply formalizes uneven existing practices.
There's more to this law than the bill.
Codify Laws traces every connection across the legislative lifecycle.