Bill 26 changes the Child, Youth and Family Services Act by replacing the phrase “in need of protection” with “the safety or well‑being of a child is endangered” across key reporting and assessment provisions. It also adds a referral power for the Director to send cases that raise safety or well‑being concerns but do not meet the Act’s statutory protection grounds to an appropriate authority, and expands the set of referral options to include supports or services for victims of violence.
These are modest-looking edits with material operational effects: they broaden the trigger for reporting and assessment, add non‑protection referral pathways, and introduce small technical fixes tying investigatory and regulatory language to specific subsections. For compliance officers and child-welfare managers, the immediate implications are changes in how to assess thresholds, who may be the subject of reports, and where the Director can lawfully send cases that don’t fit classic protection criteria.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill substitutes a broader ‘safety or well‑being … endangered’ standard for the phrase ‘in need of protection’ in sections governing reports and assessments, inserts ‘other person’ alongside ‘a parent’ in two reporting subclauses, adds supports/services for victims of violence as an explicit referral option, and creates section 15.1 giving the Director discretion to refer non‑protection endangerment matters to an appropriate authority.
Who It Affects
Mandatory reporters and anyone assessing child welfare reports (social workers, police liaisons, school personnel) must apply a broader, less categorical threshold. The Director and provincial agencies will gain formal referral options; community agencies, health services, and police may receive more referrals. Provincial compliance and case‑management systems will need updating to reflect the new language and referral workflows.
Why It Matters
Substituting the statutory phrase expands the universe of reportable conduct and can pull in cases previously outside the Act’s protection grounds, while the new referral route moves some matters out of the protection stream into other jurisdictions. That shifts operational workload, triage decisions, and inter‑agency coordination without changing the Act’s definitions of protection in subsection 3(1).
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
Bill 26 revises the statutory wording that triggers reporting and assessment by changing “in need of protection” to “the safety or well‑being of a child is endangered.” That change appears in the Act’s primary reporting sections and the assessment provisions; the practical effect is to encourage reporting and assessment wherever a person has knowledge or reasonable grounds to suspect an endangered safety or well‑being, rather than only where the narrower protection label applies.
The bill also adjusts certain reporting clauses to broaden the persons who may be the subject of concern: it inserts “or other person” after “a parent” in specified subclauses, which makes clear that a child’s safety or well‑being can be reported in relation to caregivers or other adults who are not legally parents. In addition, clause 15(c) gains a new explicit referral option — “supports or services for victims of violence” — giving the Director a named pathway to connect children, parents or families to violence‑specific services when a protection threshold is not reached.Most consequentially, the bill adds section 15.1.
After an assessment or investigation, where the Director finds reasonable grounds to suspect the child’s safety or well‑being is endangered for reasons that are not the statutory protection grounds set out in subsection 3(1), the Director may refer the matter to an “appropriate authority with jurisdiction to address it.” That creates a formal mechanism to divert certain concerns out of the child‑protection stream and into other systems (for example, health, policing, community victim services, or family supports), while keeping the protection regime intact.Finally, the bill contains technical clarifications: edits to section 30 to ensure phrasing applies to a child in need of protection and a correction to clause 63(i) to tie regulation‑making expressly to investigations under subsection 14(1). Those fixes reduce textual ambiguity but do not expand substantive authority beyond the new referral and reporting language.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill replaces the phrase “in need of protection” with “the safety or well‑being of a child is endangered” in subsections 12(1) and 12(2), broadening the reporting trigger.
Section 15(c) is amended to add an explicit referral option: “supports or services for victims of violence.”, The bill adds a new section 15.1 authorizing the Director, after assessment or investigation, to refer matters to an “appropriate authority with jurisdiction” when endangerment arises from circumstances other than those listed in subsection 3(1).
Clause 13(2) is amended to add “or other person” after “a parent” in two subclauses, extending the adult‑subject of concern beyond legal parents.
Sections 30 and 63 receive technical edits: section 30 is clarified to apply in respect of a child “in need of protection,” and clause 63(i) is tied expressly to investigations under subsection 14(1).
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Swap ‘in need of protection’ for ‘safety or well‑being … endangered’ in section 12
This amendment changes the statutory reporting language in subsection 12(1) and 12(2). Practically, it replaces a label—“in need of protection”—that courts and practitioners have applied against a narrower set of grounds with a facts‑based standard focused on whether safety or well‑being is endangered. That moves the inquiry toward risk and present danger rather than fitting facts into an enumerated protection category, which will affect initial screening and intake decisions.
Align section 13 with the broader reporting language and expand who can be the subject of concern
Clause 13(1)(c) mirrors the change made in section 12 by substituting the new endangered standard. Subclause 13(2) is altered to add “or other person” after “a parent” in two places; this explicitly recognizes caregivers or other adults (for example, step‑parents, extended family, or informal caregivers) as potential subjects of a report. Operationally, intake staff will need to document whether alleged endangerment relates to a parent or another adult and adjust kinship and safety assessments accordingly.
Add victim‑of‑violence supports to the Director’s non‑protection referral options
Amendments to clause 15(c) append “supports or services for victims of violence” to the list of referrals available when the Director finds no reasonable grounds that a child is in need of protection. This creates an explicit pathway to connect families with violence‑specific supports rather than forcing those matters into a protection file or an informal referral. For service planners, it signals recognition that some safety issues are best addressed by violence‑focused programs rather than child‑protection interventions.
New section 15.1 — formal referral power for non‑protection endangerment
Section 15.1 allows the Director, following an assessment or investigation, to refer cases to an appropriate authority when the Director reasonably suspects a child’s safety or well‑being is endangered for reasons not captured by subsection 3(1). Mechanically, that gives the Director discretion to redirect matters into other systems (police, health, victim services, community supports) with jurisdiction over the identified risk, rather than retaining the file under the Act’s protection framework. The provision does not change what constitutes a statutory protection ground; it creates an administrative exit ramp for other serious but differently framed risks.
Technical edits to section 30
Section 30(1) is amended to insert the words “in need of protection” after “exploit a child,” and subsection 30(5) receives a grammatical correction. These edits clarify that the exploitation prohibition in that section applies in the context of a child who meets the Act’s protection threshold. They are drafting cleanups rather than substantive expansions of the exploitation provision.
Tie regulatory authority to investigations under subsection 14(1)
Clause 63(i) is amended to add “under subsection 14(1),” which specifies that the power to make regulations relates to investigations conducted under that investigative provision. That narrows the textual scope of the regulation‑making authority to a defined investigative context, reducing ambiguity about which investigative activities can be regulated.
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 at earlier risk: The new ‘safety or well‑being … endangered’ wording lowers the threshold for reporting and assessment, which can surface concerns earlier and route families to supports before harms escalate.
- Victims of violence and their families: The explicit referral option for supports or services for victims of violence creates a clear pathway for connection to specialized programs rather than leaving such matters to ad hoc arrangements.
- Directors and case managers: Section 15.1 gives the Director formal authority to divert non‑protection endangerment cases to the right jurisdiction, providing an administrative tool to manage caseloads and align responses with appropriate service providers.
- Non‑parent caregivers and extended family: Adding “other person” after “a parent” clarifies that the Act’s reporting framework can apply when the alleged risk arises from non‑parental adults, which can protect children in alternative caregiving arrangements.
Who Bears the Cost
- Frontline reporters and intake teams: Broader, less categorical language increases triage complexity and may require training and new procedures to determine when ‘endangered’ reaches the reporting threshold.
- Community service providers and victim services: The Director’s new power to refer non‑protection cases will likely increase referrals to community and health services without accompanying new funding, raising capacity pressures.
- Provincial department/Directorate: Implementing referral pathways, updating forms and IT systems, and providing training impose administrative and budgetary burdens on the department that administers the Act.
- Police and other authorities receiving referrals: Agencies that receive additional referrals under section 15.1 will need protocols and resources to assess and act on matters outside the child‑protection stream.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The bill attempts to strike a balance between earlier, risk‑based intervention and preserving the Act’s defined protection powers: it broadens the trigger for reporting and empowers administrative referrals, but doing so risks expanding state contact with families and increasing system demand without clear standards or funding to ensure referrals lead to effective responses.
The core operational ambiguity in Bill 26 lies in the interaction between a broader, more flexible reporting standard and the Act’s existing statutory protection grounds. By substituting a facts‑based ‘safety or well‑being … endangered’ standard, the bill intentionally pushes professionals toward risk‑focused reporting, but it does not change the legal definition of when a child is ‘in need of protection’ under subsection 3(1).
That leaves practitioners with two adjacent but different thresholds to apply: one for initiating reports/assessments and another for invoking protection powers. Translating that into consistent intake decisions requires clear guidance and training, or it risks inconsistent referrals and a higher volume of marginal cases entering the system.
Section 15.1’s referral mechanism is useful in principle but vague in execution. “Appropriate authority with jurisdiction” is administratively flexible but legally indeterminate: agencies will need memoranda of understanding, information‑sharing protocols, and defined timelines to prevent referrals from becoming a way to offshore responsibility. There is also a resource trade‑off: referring a matter out of the protection stream does not remove the need for action — it reallocates it.
Without targeted resourcing, community health and victim services could see increased demand without capacity, undermining the policy intent. Finally, the textual fixes in sections 30 and 63 reduce drafting uncertainty but may require cross‑referencing in existing policies and regulations to ensure no unintended narrowing of previously assumed regulatory reach.
There's more to this law than the bill.
Codify Laws traces every connection across the legislative lifecycle.