This bill amends Prince Edward Island’s Early Learning and Child Care Act to give the provincial Board broader discretion to refuse to consider licences and certification applications (and renewals) when an associated person is under investigation, charged, or subject to a proceeding that could reasonably suggest unsuitability to have contact with children. It sets concrete application time limits (one year or three months depending on the filing) and adds regulatory carve-outs for other specified circumstances.
The measure also adds a statutory definition of “sexual misconduct,” requires licensed operators to adopt a sexual‑misconduct prevention-and-response policy within one year of the section coming into force, and explicitly authorizes regulations requiring reporting to the Board. Together, the changes strengthen precautionary oversight of who may operate or be certified in child‑care settings but increase administrative discretion and compliance requirements for operators and applicants.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill inserts new 'refuse to consider' powers across licence and certification application and renewal provisions when an associated person or applicant is under investigation, charged, or subject to proceedings; it prescribes timeouts for incomplete applications (one year for new applications, three months for renewals) and expands regulatory authority to require reporting and sexual‑misconduct policies.
Who It Affects
Licensed child‑care operators, licence applicants, individual certificate holders and prospective staff, the provincial Early Learning and Child Care Board and its inspectors, and families using regulated centres. Private applicants with associated persons (owners, directors, household members) who face legal proceedings are directly impacted.
Why It Matters
The bill shifts practical gatekeeping earlier in the licensing lifecycle—allowing the Board to pause consideration of applications before formal suspension or conviction—and formally embeds sexual‑misconduct prevention and reporting into the regulatory regime, increasing compliance obligations and administrative discretion.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The amendments add a repeated mechanism across the Act: if someone associated with a centre or an applicant is under investigation, charged, or subject to a proceeding that could reasonably suggest they are unsuitable to be around children, the Board may decline to even consider that licence, renewal, certification, or certification renewal application while the matter remains unresolved. That discretion appears in new sections addressing both centres and individual certificate holders, and it applies both to initial applications and renewals.
The point on timing is important: some application timelines are set (one year for many new applications; three months for renewals) so incomplete filings can also be a ground to refuse consideration.
The bill also creates an enumerated statutory definition of “sexual misconduct,” listing conduct from sexual assault and exploitation through harassment, stalking, indecent exposure, voyeurism and distribution of intimate images. Operators must adopt a written sexual‑misconduct prevention and response policy within one year of that provision coming into force; regulations will flesh out content, reporting obligations, and timing.
Separately, the statute’s regulation‑making clause is expanded to allow the government to prescribe what must be reported to the Board, how and when, and to identify other circumstances in which the Board may refuse to consider an application.Procedural changes follow the new refusal power: the Act’s notice, suspension, and probation provisions are updated to cross‑reference refusal to consider applications; the range of decisions subject to appeal by the Appeal Board is broadened so applicants can seek review where the Board refuses to consider an application. The bill also tidies language (gender‑neutral replacements and minor typographical corrections) and leaves commencement to proclamation.In practice, the Board gains a preemptive tool to remove questionable applicants from the licensing queue pending the outcome of investigations or legal proceedings, while operators must prepare a new written policy and potentially new reporting processes.
The reforms therefore strengthen child‑safety controls but also increase administrative burdens and the potential for contested, precautionary exclusions prior to adjudication of underlying allegations.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The Board may refuse to consider a licence application if an 'associated person' is under investigation, charged, or the subject of a proceeding and the matter hasn't concluded.
Incomplete applications become a separate ground for non‑consideration: new applications lapse after one year, renewals after three months if not completed per the Act’s timelines.
Section 40.1 defines 'sexual misconduct' with an explicit list (sexual assault, exploitation, harassment, stalking, indecent exposure, voyeurism, distribution of intimate images) and requires operators to adopt a sexual‑misconduct policy within one year of proclamation.
The Act adds specific clauses allowing suspension and issuance of probationary licences or certificates where an associated person or certificate holder is under investigation (new clauses 49(b.1) and 53(b.1)).
Regulations may prescribe what operators must report to the Board (how and when) and may specify additional circumstances in which the Board can refuse to consider applications.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Gender‑neutral and minor editorial updates
Multiple subsections are updated to replace gendered pronouns (e.g., 'his or her') with neutral phrasing ('the member’s', 'the person', 'the inspector’s', 'that Minister’s'), and a few typographical corrections are made. These are mechanical edits that do not change substantive powers but reduce inconsistent drafting and modernize language across the Act.
Board may refuse to consider licence/certification applications and renewals
These new sections mirror one another for centres and individuals: the Board may refuse to consider initial applications and renewals when an associated person or the individual applicant is under investigation, charged, or the subject of proceedings that give reasonable grounds to doubt suitability to have contact with children. Each provision also makes an incomplete application (one‑year deadline for many initial applications; three months for renewals) an independent ground for refusal, and delegates to regulations to name other circumstances. Operationally, these clauses let the Board remove an application from active consideration before exercising suspension or issuing a refusal on the merits.
New grounds for suspension and probationary licences/certificates
The Act adds clause (b.1) in both the licence‑suspension and certificate‑suspension rules to allow the Board to suspend a licence or certificate and issue a probationary instrument where an associated person or the certificate holder is under investigation or charged. This creates a stepped enforcement path: the Board can pause operations via suspension/probation while processes continue, separate from the new 'refuse to consider' mechanism for pending applications.
Procedural updates: continuance, notice and appeals
Amendments ensure the Board’s new refusal powers are woven into existing procedural rules: licences remain in effect while renewal applications are pending until the Board either refuses to consider, refuses to renew, or renews; notice obligations are expanded to cover refusals to consider; and the Appeal Board’s review jurisdiction is extended so applicants can seek review of a decision not to consider an application. These edits change the timing and availability of administrative remedies and create new pre‑decision review pathways.
Definition of sexual misconduct and mandatory policy
The bill defines 'sexual misconduct' broadly and explicitly lists behaviors the regulations may also specify. It requires every operator of a licensed centre to establish a sexual‑misconduct prevention and response policy within one year of the section coming into force. The statute does not set out the policy’s contents—that detail is left to regulation and operator implementation—so operators must await regulatory guidance or adopt broadly protective policies in the interim.
Expanded regulation‑making power: reporting and refusal circumstances
Clause 76 is expanded to let regulations require information to be reported by operators to the Board (including manner and timing) and to expressly authorize adoption of a sexual‑misconduct policy by regulation. Clause 76(j.2) is amended so the regulations may prescribe additional circumstances in which the Board may refuse to consider licence or certification applications. This is the primary delegation point for operational detail and compliance obligations.
Commencement
The Act comes into force by proclamation of the Lieutenant Governor in Council. That means the new refusal discretions and the sexual‑misconduct policy deadline do not begin until the executive sets a proclamation date, allowing some lead time for drafting regulations and operational guidance.
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
- Children and families: The precautionary refusal and suspension powers reduce the risk that individuals under investigation will have unsupervised contact with children while matters are unresolved.
- The Early Learning and Child Care Board and inspectors: The Board gains clearer statutory authority to pause applications and impose probationary measures, giving regulators an expanded toolkit to manage risk.
- Staff and certificate holders who follow policy: Workers who push for safe workplaces and compliance with a sexual‑misconduct policy may gain clearer recourse and expectations for employer prevention and response efforts.
- Parents and advocacy organizations: Explicit statutory attention to sexual misconduct and reporting makes obligations visible and easier to hold operators accountable.
Who Bears the Cost
- Licensed operators and prospective applicants: They must draft, adopt, and operationalize a sexual‑misconduct policy, comply with new reporting obligations, and face the risk of licence/renewal delays if an associated person is under investigation.
- Small or family‑run centres: Centres with informal ownership or household associations may struggle to parse who counts as an 'associated person' and could see applications stalled by investigations unrelated to centre operations.
- The Board and provincial administration: Expanded casework, reviewable refusals, and new reporting streams will increase administrative load and may require new staff, guidance, and systems.
- Individuals under investigation (and their families): Because the standard for refusing to consider is tied to 'reasonable grounds' from ongoing proceedings rather than a finding, affected people may face prolonged exclusion from child‑care roles before adjudication.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central tension is between protecting children by enabling precautionary exclusion of applicants or staff who are under investigation, and safeguarding procedural fairness for those individuals: the bill substitutes administrative discretion for adjudication in many cases, raising hard questions about evidence thresholds, the duration of exclusion, and how to reconcile privacy and criminal‑process protections with proactive child‑safety regulation.
The bill privileges precaution over adjudication: it empowers the Board to step in before an underlying matter concludes, which reduces immediate risk but also risks preemptive exclusion of applicants or staff based on investigatory status. The statute repeatedly defers key content to regulation—what constitutes an 'associated person,' the precise reporting requirements, and additional 'circumstances' for refusal—so much of practical effect will hinge on forthcoming regulations and administrative guidance.
That delegation speeds adoption but creates interim uncertainty for operators trying to comply immediately with the sexual‑misconduct policy deadline.
Implementation raises predictable friction points. Determining what information regulators may demand from operators while respecting privacy and the integrity of criminal investigations will require careful protocol and likely data‑sharing agreements with police; otherwise, Boards will face evidentiary gaps when deciding whether 'reasonable grounds' exist.
The appeal expansion gives applicants a remedy, but it does not set the standard of review for refusals to consider—will the Appeal Board conduct a merits review, a reasonableness review, or limited procedural oversight?—so litigants and administrators should expect contested litigation about standards. Finally, the asymmetric timelines (one year for new applications, three months for renewals) may lead applicants to game filing behavior or trigger unintended licence lapses during complex investigations.
There's more to this law than the bill.
Codify Laws traces every connection across the legislative lifecycle.