Keep Exposure Testing After Source Death

Summary#

This bill changes Ontario’s Mandatory Blood Testing Act, 2006. It fills a gap so that people can still ask to test another person’s blood for blood‑borne infections (such as HIV or hepatitis) after a possible exposure, even if that other person has died. It also lets the Health Minister set detailed rules for how these cases will be handled.

• Lets an application continue if the person whose blood would be tested dies after the request is made.
• Allows a new application even when the person was already deceased at the time of the incident.
• Authorizes the Minister of Health to set the detailed steps public health, a provincial board, and judges must follow in these cases.
• Updates wording in the law to match these changes.
• Takes effect on a date set later by the provincial government.

What it means for you#

• People exposed to blood or body fluids

  • If you think you were exposed and the other person has died (for example, after a crash or assault), you can ask to have their blood tested.
  • If the person dies after you apply, your case will not stop.
  • Results may help your doctor decide on preventive medicine and follow‑up care.

• First responders and health‑care workers

  • After on‑duty exposures where the source person dies, you will have a clearer path to request testing.
  • This may reduce the time you spend waiting and worrying after an exposure.

• Victims of violent incidents and Good Samaritans

  • You can apply for testing even if the other person is deceased.
  • Public health will follow new, set rules for these situations once issued.

• Families of a deceased person

  • Public health or a provincial board may handle applications involving your loved one’s blood.
  • The government will set the detailed rules, including what steps officials must take and who is notified.

• Hospitals, coroners, laboratories

  • You may be asked to provide or test samples from a deceased person, as allowed by the new rules.
  • Workload could increase in cases tied to exposure incidents.

• Local public health units

  • New procedures will apply to deceased‑person cases, to be set by regulation.

Expenses#

No publicly available information.

Proponents' View#

• Closes a loophole so exposed people can still get answers if the source person dies.
• Helps doctors choose and adjust preventive treatment more quickly.
• Reduces fear and uncertainty for first responders, health workers, and victims.
• Creates a clear, standard process instead of ad hoc decisions.
• Keeps applications moving so time‑sensitive medical decisions are better informed.

Opponents' View#

• Raises privacy and consent concerns about testing a deceased person and sharing results with others.
• Leaves many details to regulations set by the Minister, with fewer safeguards written directly into the law.
• Source testing may not be conclusive (for example, early infection “window” periods), which could give false reassurance.
• Could add work and costs for public health units, hospitals, and coroners.
• Families may see the process as intrusive or disrespectful.