This Act adds a non‑disclosure regime to the Yukon Victims of Crime Act that shields victim records — and any information revealing their existence — from disclosure to alleged offenders and, more broadly, from disclosure where doing so could reasonably be expected to cause harm. It also replaces the Act’s collection/disclosure provision to permit sharing of victims’ names, contact details and offence information between public bodies and federal institutions unless a victim has opted out of receiving services.
Those changes alter how public bodies respond to Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act (ATIPP) requests: the new section applies to requests by non‑victim applicants for access to their own personal information in victim records, requires harm assessments before disclosing, and gives public bodies a discretionary, not mandatory, option to notify the Information and Privacy Commissioner of withheld records. The Act also inserts definitions to align territorial practice with the federal Privacy Act and ATIPP Act.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill (1) adds s.14.01 making ‘protected information’ in victim records non‑disclosable to alleged offenders and non‑victims when disclosure could cause harm; (2) replaces s.14 to clarify permitted collection and inter‑agency sharing of victim names, contacts and offence details; and (3) ties definitions to the federal Privacy Act and ATIPP Act.
Who It Affects
Territorial public bodies that handle victim services (police, corrections, victim services units, health and social services), federal ‘government institutions’ that may exchange information with Yukon, ATIPP officers, and applicants (including alleged offenders) who seek records under ATIPP.
Why It Matters
The law creates a territorial carve‑out to limit use of ATIPP by offenders trying to obtain victim information, shifting practical responsibility for harm assessments to responding public bodies and narrowing routine transparency where victims’ safety or dignity could be affected.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The Act rewrites two core parts of the Yukon Victims of Crime Act and adds a new, protective rule. First, it replaces the Act’s collection/disclosure section to state expressly that public bodies and federally defined government institutions may collect a victim’s name, contact information and details about the offence and may share that information with other public bodies or federal institutions — but not if the victim has said they do not want services.
That change makes inter‑agency sharing explicit while preserving a victim’s ability to opt out of the services stream that triggers collection.
Second, the Act adds section 14.01, which defines “protected information” broadly to include not only personal information contained in a victim record but also information that reveals the very existence of a victim record. The section applies specifically to ATIPP access requests made by applicants who are not victims seeking access to their own personal information in those records.
Under the new rule, public bodies must not disclose protected information to an alleged offender or offender, and must withhold it from others unless they are satisfied disclosure cannot reasonably be expected to cause harm to the victim.Operationally, the law makes public bodies the front line for harm assessments. They must decide, case by case, whether disclosure risks bodily or mental injury, humiliation, reputational or relationship damage, emotional trauma, economic loss or deprivation of property.
The Act allows, but does not require, those bodies to notify the Information and Privacy Commissioner of their withholding decisions and to supply reasons; it also says the new territorial rule supersedes conflicting provisions of the ATIPP Act except for sections 82 and 83. In short: Yukon narrows what can be disclosed from victim records, gives local agencies discretion and duty to assess risk, and preserves limited oversight routes to the Commissioner.
The Five Things You Need to Know
Section 14.01 defines “protected information” to include both personal information in a victim record and any information that reveals the existence of a victim record.
The new non‑disclosure rule bars public bodies from releasing protected information to an alleged offender or offender, and bars release to others unless the public body is satisfied disclosure cannot reasonably be expected to cause harm to the victim.
Section 14 (replaced) explicitly permits public bodies and federally defined government institutions to collect and share a victim’s name, contact information and offence details with other public bodies, unless the victim has indicated they do not wish to receive services.
When a public body withholds protected information under s.14.01 it may, but is not required to, notify the Information and Privacy Commissioner and may, but need not, provide reasons for the decision.
Section 14.01 is declared to prevail over conflicting provisions of the ATIPP Act, except for sections 82 and 83 of that Act (which remain operative).
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
New definitions to align jurisdictional terms
This amendment inserts definitions for “government institution” (taken from the federal Privacy Act) and “public body” (taken from Yukon’s ATIPP Act) into s.1. Practically, that aligns terminology so the Act can refer explicitly to federally defined institutions (e.g., RCMP, federal departments) when describing permissible collection and inter‑jurisdictional sharing. It reduces ambiguity about whether a recipient of victim information is a territorial public body or a federal institution when information is exchanged.
Clarifies collection and inter‑agency disclosure of victim data
The replaced s.14 authorizes public bodies and government institutions responsible for providing services under the Act to collect victims’ names, contact details and offence information and to pass those particulars to other public bodies or federal institutions. The provision preserves a victim’s right to opt out: if a victim indicates they do not want services under the Act, public bodies should not treat or record their information under this collection/sharing rule. This section creates a discrete pathway for sharing among service providers while leaving open other legal bases for information exchange.
What counts as ‘protected information’ and who is covered
Subsection (1) supplies working definitions used through the new section: it imports ATIPP Act terms such as “access request,” “personal information,” and “record,” and defines “protected information” to include personal information in victim records and any data revealing the existence of such records. Importantly, the provision applies to access requests made under ATIPP by applicants who are not victims seeking access to their own personal information — a targeted scope designed to prevent alleged offenders from obtaining victim‑related data through ATIPP.
Non‑disclosure duty, optional commissioner notice, and primacy over ATIPP
Subsection (3) imposes the non‑disclosure duty: withhold protected information from alleged offenders and offenders, and from others unless the public body is satisfied disclosure cannot reasonably be expected to cause harm. Subsection (4) makes notification of the Information and Privacy Commissioner discretionary — public bodies may alert the Commissioner and may include reasons, but they are not obliged to. Subsection (5) gives this section precedence over conflicting ATIPP provisions, except for sections 82 and 83, so the territorial rule reduces disclosure obligations under ATIPP but does not eliminate the Commissioner’s core statutory powers preserved by those exceptions.
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
- Victims of crime — stronger statutory protection of their records and the explicit protection of the very existence of victim files reduces the risk of retraumatization or reprisals from disclosed information.
- Victim services providers and advocates — clearer legal boundaries for inter‑agency information flows, and an express opt‑out for victims, help service providers manage client confidentiality and safety planning.
- Community safety planners and frontline workers (police, corrections, social services) — explicit authority to share victim contact and offence details among public bodies/federal institutions supports coordinated responses where safety requires information exchange.
Who Bears the Cost
- Territorial public bodies and ATIPP officers — increased operational burden to assess harm on a case‑by‑case basis, perform redactions, and document discretionary non‑disclosure decisions without a mandatory reporting mechanism.
- Information and Privacy Commissioner’s office — potential increase in appeals or disputes about withheld records, complicated by the Act’s optional notification and partial primacy over ATIPP provisions.
- Researchers, journalists and transparency advocates — greater difficulty obtaining information about victims’ interactions with public services because the Act protects not only content but the existence of victim records, narrowing public accountability.
- Applicants (including alleged offenders) and defence counsel — loss of a routinized ATIPP path to obtain personal information contained in victim records, which may affect case preparation and access to one’s own records.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is between protecting victims’ safety and dignity by tightly limiting disclosure (including hiding the existence of records) and preserving applicants’ statutory right to access personal information and public transparency. The bill protects vulnerable individuals but shifts hard judgment calls and oversight responsibilities onto public bodies, trading standardized access procedures for discretionary, case‑by‑case privacy determinations.
The bill trades a clear safety floor for a discretionary, case‑driven regime that puts public bodies in the position of gatekeeper. The statutory harm test is broad (covering bodily or mental injury, humiliation, reputational or relationship damage, emotional trauma, economic loss or deprivation of property) but offers no operational checklist or evidentiary standard.
Public bodies will need internal policies and training to apply the “cannot reasonably be expected to cause harm” threshold consistently; absent that, expect variability in outcomes and a rise in contested ATIPP decisions.
Two procedural choices in the Act create implementation pressure points. First, the Act makes notification to the Information and Privacy Commissioner optional.
That reduces administrative overhead for territorial authorities but also lessens routine oversight and the Commissioner’s early ability to review systemic withholding patterns. Second, the Act declares territorial primacy over conflicting ATIPP provisions except for sections 82 and 83, preserving some oversight while narrowing obligations to disclose.
The scope and practical effect of that primacy will quickly become litigated ground, particularly where federal institutions (RCMP, Corrections Canada units) are involved and cross‑jurisdictional coordination is needed.
There's more to this law than the bill.
Codify Laws traces every connection across the legislative lifecycle.