This bill amends Prince Edward Island’s Private Schools Act to require private-school applicants to include a written policy on preventing and responding to sexual misconduct and to expand criminal-background screening and reporting duties for all private-school employees. It gives the provincial Administrator power to investigate reported incidents and requires operators to notify regulators and maintain records that can be shared to facilitate student transfers.
The changes standardize baseline protections across private schools—defining sexual misconduct in statute, setting timelines for criminal and vulnerable sector checks, creating mandatory reporting duties, and adding a one-year transition window for existing schools to adopt policies. For operators, regulators, and post-secondary institutions, the bill shifts compliance expectations and gives the Department of Education new investigatory authority and disclosure obligations that will affect operations, hiring, and recordkeeping practices.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill requires applicants for private-school registration to submit a sexual misconduct policy, obliges operators to maintain and report on incidents, mandates vulnerable sector or criminal checks before hiring and every three years, empowers the Administrator to investigate complaints, and obliges operators to provide student records on request to other educational institutions.
Who It Affects
Private-school operators in PEI, all private-school employees (including instructors), the provincial Administrator and Registrar under the Education Act, and receiving schools (elementary, secondary, post-secondary) that will receive student records to facilitate enrollment or placement.
Why It Matters
It adds statutory definitions and operational duties that professionalize private-school governance, creates a formal investigatory channel at the provincial level, and narrows gaps between public and private-sector requirements on background checks and student-file transfers—raising compliance costs for operators while potentially improving student safety and mobility.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill inserts a new, statutory definition of “sexual misconduct” that lists specific offences (sexual assault, exploitation, harassment, stalking, indecent exposure, voyeurism, and distribution of intimate images) and allows the Lieutenant Governor in Council to expand that list by regulation. An applicant for private-school registration must now submit a written policy describing how the school prevents and responds to sexual misconduct; operators must keep the policy current and report incidents or complaints to the Administrator and, where relevant, to the Registrar under the Education Act.
Independently of any internal school process, the Administrator or a person the Administrator authorizes may investigate any reported incident. That investigatory power includes inspecting records and interviewing witnesses, which gives the Department of Education a direct fact‑finding role in complaints that previously might have been handled solely by the school.
The bill requires operators to inform the Administrator how they are addressing incidents, creating parallel reporting and oversight obligations.The bill tightens criminal-screening rules: every employee must undergo a vulnerable sector check, if available under federal law, or otherwise a criminal record check no more than three months before starting work; thereafter the operator must obtain a criminal record check at least once every three years. Operators must prevent unsupervised access to students until checks are complete and no reasonable grounds exist to believe the employee is a danger, and employees must promptly notify operators if charged with a criminal offence.
The bill contains transitional rules giving existing registered schools one year to adopt the sexual‑misconduct policy and specific limited transitional arrangements for instructors and other employees employed before the provision comes into force.Finally, the bill adds a disclosure requirement: on request by a student or former student, an operator must promptly provide another educational institution (elementary, secondary, or post‑secondary) with the records the operator keeps that are necessary to facilitate the student’s enrollment or placement. The legislation also creates an explicit regulation‑making head of power to define other conduct that constitutes sexual misconduct.
Taken together, these changes reallocate responsibility among operators, employees, and provincial regulators around prevention, investigation, and information flow.
The Five Things You Need to Know
Applicants for private-school registration must submit a written sexual‑misconduct prevention-and-response policy with the application.
Operators must obtain a vulnerable sector check (if available) or a criminal record check no more than three months before an employee starts, and a criminal record check at least once every three years while employed.
The provincial Administrator may investigate any reported incident or complaint of sexual misconduct, including inspecting records and interviewing witnesses, even if the school is already investigating.
Existing registered private schools have one year after the new section comes into force to establish a sexual‑misconduct policy; transitional rules apply to instructors employed for less than eight weeks and to other employees.
On request of a student or former student, operators must promptly provide necessary student records to another elementary, secondary, or post‑secondary institution to facilitate enrollment or placement.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Registration application must include statutory items and prescribed fee
This narrow amendment replaces the phrasing that referenced only the regulations with wording that requires applicants to provide “the information and documents required by this Act and the regulations” and to pay the “prescribed fee.” Practically, it tightens the legal baseline for what an application must contain and prevents reliance solely on regulatory detail—making statutory requirements non‑delegable to regulations alone. Operators should expect the registration checklist to reflect both statutory and regulatory items.
Defines sexual misconduct; mandates policies and reporting; empowers investigations
This is the bill’s core safety reform. It places a defined list of sexual‑misconduct conduct into statute, requires applicants to submit a prevention-and-response policy, obliges operators to maintain and update that policy, and to inform the Administrator and the Education Act Registrar of incidents or complaints. Importantly, it authorizes the Administrator (or an authorized delegate) to investigate independently—powerful tools that include inspection of records and interviewing potential witnesses. The provision also builds in a one‑year transition for already‑registered schools to adopt a policy.
Expands criminal‑screening rules and employee reporting duties
This section replaces prior language to require vulnerable sector checks where the federal Criminal Records Act permits them, or otherwise criminal checks, within three months before employment starts, and periodic criminal checks at least every three years. It bars unsupervised student access until checks are complete and the operator has no reasonable grounds for concern, and it imposes a prompt reporting duty on employees charged with criminal offences. The section also contains two transitional clauses: one that preserves the old, shorter rules for instructors employed for under eight weeks at the date of coming into force, and another that gives current non‑instructor employees up to three months to obtain a check.
Mandatory disclosure of student records to receiving institutions
The bill requires operators to provide, on request of a student or former student, a copy of records the operator keeps that are necessary to facilitate enrollment or placement at another elementary, secondary, or post‑secondary institution. The obligation is limited to records necessary for enrollment or placement, but it creates an immediate duty to respond “promptly,” which will force operators to establish procedures and access controls to locate and transmit files without delay.
Allows regulations to expand definitions of sexual misconduct
By adding clause 17(1)(b.1), the Act explicitly authorizes the Lieutenant Governor in Council to specify other conduct that constitutes sexual misconduct for section 4.1 purposes. That gives the government a fast administrative route to broaden the list of prohibited conduct without returning to the legislature, which matters for employers and regulators tracking potential changes to prohibited behaviors.
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 and survivors of sexual misconduct — The statutory definition, mandatory policies, and investigative powers increase the likelihood of standardized prevention, reporting, and independent fact‑finding across private schools.
- Parents and guardians — Faster access to student records and clearer incident‑reporting obligations give families better information and smoother transitions when moving students between schools.
- Receiving educational institutions (elementary/secondary/post‑secondary) — The new disclosure duty reduces administrative friction for enrollment and placement by obliging operators to provide necessary records promptly.
- Provincial regulators (Administrator/Registrar) — The Administrator gains explicit statutory investigatory authority and clearer reporting channels, improving oversight capacity in cases involving private schools.
Who Bears the Cost
- Private‑school operators — They must draft, maintain, and implement sexual‑misconduct policies, upgrade hiring and recordkeeping processes, run periodic criminal checks, and respond promptly to record requests and investigations.
- Small private schools and independent operators — Compliance costs (policy development, background‑check timing, and potential legal support during investigations) will be proportionally heavier for smaller institutions with limited administrative staff.
- Employees (prospective and current) — They face mandatory background screening timelines, and a duty to report criminal charges that could affect employment status and privacy expectations.
- Department of Education / Administrator — The Department will need resources to conduct investigations, process reports, authorize delegates, and manage increased information flows, unless funding or staff adjustments follow.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The bill balances two legitimate goals—strengthening student safety through statutory definitions, mandatory policies, oversight, and checks, against preserving operational autonomy and privacy for employees and schools; the result forces a trade‑off between stronger, centralized protection and increased administrative burden, potential duplication of investigations, and uncertainties about privacy, due process, and resource allocation.
The bill centralizes investigatory authority with the Administrator while leaving significant discretion to the operator to determine whether an employee may have unsupervised access. That dual structure creates potential duplication and conflict: schools will run internal processes while the Administrator can open parallel investigations, raising questions about information sharing, due process for employees, and the timing of remedial action (suspension, reassignment) pending investigation.
The statute requires operators to “inform” the Administrator how incidents are being addressed but does not set clear standards for what remedial measures are proportionate or mandatory pending the outcome.
The criminal‑screening regime leans on the federal Criminal Records Act to authorize vulnerable sector checks; where those checks are not available, the fallback is a criminal record check—less protective for certain sexual‑offence histories that only show up in vulnerable sector checks. The bill does not address the cost burden or who pays for repeated checks, nor does it detail how employers should treat charges (as opposed to convictions) beyond the reporting duty.
On student‑record disclosure, the obligation to provide records “necessary” for enrollment invites disputes over scope, privacy protections, and whether operators can or must redact sensitive information. Finally, the new regulation‑making head of power means the statutory list of sexual misconduct can expand administratively, which is efficient but reduces legislative scrutiny over changes to core criminal‑behaviour definitions.
There's more to this law than the bill.
Codify Laws traces every connection across the legislative lifecycle.