Ontario Expands Sex Offender Data Sharing

Summary#

• This bill changes how Ontario can share information from the sex offender registry. Its goal is to let police and certain approved organizations use registry data to prevent crime and support law enforcement.

• It keeps the registry non-public. It expands who can receive the data for specific safety purposes.

• Key changes:

  • Lets police and authorized Ministry staff share registry information with police services in Ontario and policing bodies in other places, for crime prevention or law enforcement.
  • Allows the Ministry to share registry information with other “prescribed” entities (to be named later in regulations) for the same purposes.
  • Requires the Ministry to sign an agreement with each prescribed entity before sharing any information.
  • Gives the government power to set which entities are prescribed and the rules for these agreements.
  • The change for police-to-police sharing takes effect when the bill becomes law. The rest will start on a later date set by the government.

What it means for you#

• General public

  • The registry does not become public. You will not get new access to look up names.
  • Police and some approved partners may be able to act faster to prevent or respond to crime by using registry data.
  • More coordination across borders is possible, which could help in cases that involve travel or moves.

• People on the sex offender registry

  • More agencies may receive your registry information for crime prevention or law enforcement.
  • These agencies may collect, keep, and use your information for those purposes.
  • If the agency is not a police service, the Ministry must have an agreement in place before sharing with it.
  • The list of non-police entities is not set yet. It will be added later by regulation.

• Police and government

  • Clear authority to share registry data with other police services, including outside Ontario.
  • New ability to share with other prescribed entities, but only after signing a disclosure agreement.
  • Will need to draft regulations that name which entities qualify and set rules for agreements, data handling, and safeguards.

Expenses#

Estimated annual cost: No publicly available information.

• The bill does not include a fiscal note.
• Any costs would depend on future regulations and the number of agreements and data-sharing systems set up.

Proponents' View#

• Better information-sharing can help prevent crimes and protect communities.
• Clear authority to share with police in other places improves cross-border cooperation.
• Requiring written agreements with non-police entities adds safeguards and accountability.
• Use is limited to crime prevention and law enforcement, not public disclosure.

Opponents' View#

• “Prescribed entities” will be set later by regulation, which could expand access too far without full legislative debate.
• Privacy concerns: more sharing increases the risk of misuse, over-collection, or data breaches.
• The bill allows entities to “collect, retain, and use” the data but does not set clear limits on how long or how broadly, leaving details to future rules.
• Wider sharing may affect the rehabilitation and re-entry of people on the registry if many agencies can access their information.