Everyone knows someone who knows someone impacted by IPV

Intimate partner violence (IPV) is a pervasive reality in our province. It has devastating impacts on individuals and can lead to intergenerational trauma for children and families. In 2022, more than 38,000 IPV incidents were reported to police in Ontario. While IPV affects all genders, the large majority of these incidents involve violence against women and girls. This sobering statistic doesn’t include incidents never reported to police, meaning that the actual prevalence of IPV across our province is likely much higher.

IPV is a societal issue. Several Ontario municipalities have declared it an epidemic and others are calling to do the same provincially. Addressing the complex reality of IPV requires collaborative, multi-system approaches to address its root causes.

June 28 marked two years since the coroner’s inquest into the tragic deaths of Carol Culleton, Anastasia Kuzyk, and Nathalie Warmerdam in Renfrew County, Ontario, due to IPV. The inquest resulted in 86 jury recommendations. Recommendation 78 called on my office to work with relevant partners to develop a plain language tool to empower IPV professionals to make informed decisions about privacy, confidentiality, and public safety. We immediately accepted this recommendation and began working on developing guidance. 

I am incredibly proud of the members of my team who took on this project with so much passion and dedication. They reached out to professionals in the justice, health, and social services sectors and heard how difficult the decision to share — or not to share — personal information can be. Many professionals feel torn between their obligation of confidentiality to their clients and the urgency to act in situations where even the slightest hesitation could mean the difference between life and death. 

My team also worked with the Woman Abuse Council of Toronto (WomanACT) to organize a focus group discussion with survivors of IPV, whose lived experiences are often not heard or readily understood. This focus group provided an opportunity to hear survivors’ perspectives on what it’s like to have to navigate through systems directly impacting their safety and privacy, often while facing linguistic or cultural barriers. They listened to the unique experiences of Black and Indigenous women, whose historical interactions with the criminal justice and child welfare sectors reflect systemic discrimination that has resulted in a deep-seated mistrust. 

Our publication, Sharing Information in Situations Involving Intimate Partner Violence: Guidance for Professionals explains when Ontario's privacy laws permit the sharing of personal information, particularly in situations where there's a risk of serious harm to health or safety. Using hypothetical scenarios and decision trees, it offers practical recommendations to help professionals better navigate Ontario’s privacy laws and feel less reticent to lawfully share personal information in situations involving IPV. Consent remains the go-to principle — always. But when consent is not possible or practicable, it’s essential to weigh the many other factors at play, including first and foremost any serious risks to the health or safety of women and their children. 

I had the privilege of speaking with Priya Shastri, Director of Programs at WomanACT, during a recent episode of our Info Matters podcast. I asked her a tough question that was asked of me during a recent interview. By publishing guidance that explains when professionals can lawfully share personal information without consent to prevent harm or save a life, do we risk making women and girls more fearful about coming forward to seek help? 

As a professional with over a decade of front-line experience, Priya’s answer was no. One of the first things case workers should do is explain issues around valid consent. Being transparent about it in our guidance and encouraging professionals to have those discussions up front helps to build trust with clients through common understanding. Often, women are less concerned about consenting to sharing their personal information, and more concerned about what will happen to them and their children after they give consent. This highlights the critical need for a robust information governance process, together with timely and effective safety planning, to support vulnerable individuals seeking help. 

Ontario’s privacy laws are not a barrier to sharing information in situations involving IPV. Our goal with this new IPC guidance is to dispel any misunderstandings and help reduce unnecessary delays in sharing life-saving information. 

As we mark the second anniversary of the coroner’s inquest into the untimely deaths of Carol Culleton, Anastasia Kuzyk, and Nathalie Warmerdam, it’s a time to reflect on their profound and heartbreaking realities, those of their families, and of many others. 

IPV is a devastating truth that we must all confront as a society. And it’s not as remote as we might think. Everyone likely knows someone whose life has been tragically impacted by IPV. 

I do. 

Do you?