Summary#
Bill 53, the Dignity and Mental Health in Jails Act, 2025, would amend Ontario’s Correctional Services and Reintegration Act, 2018 and Ministry of Correctional Services Act. It would prohibit segregation and certain treatment of inmates, require mental health support beds in new or expanded institutions, and require reviews of restrictive confinement. Its stated goal is more humane treatment and an end to solitary confinement.
- A new correctional institution could not be established unless at least 20% of its beds are in designated, equipped mental health support units. Renovations or expansions must move an existing institution closer to that percentage; regulations could set a higher percentage.
- Superintendents must ensure inmates are treated in compliance with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Violating this duty would be an offence, punishable by a fine of up to $100,000, up to two years in prison, or both.
- The bill would prohibit cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment, as well as specified practices including excessive physical constraints or surveillance, sensory deprivation, and punishment by withholding food, exercise, periodic human contact, or medical observation and treatment. Violations would carry the same maximum penalties.
- Superintendents must ensure no inmate is held in “segregation”—defined in the Ministry of Correctional Services Act as highly restricted movement and association for 22 hours or more a day.
- Inmates in “restrictive confinement” would retain most rights and privileges, and must have access to programs and services adapted to their circumstances. An Independent Review Panel must review their cases under rules to be made by regulation and recommend action to the superintendent.
What it means for you#
- Inmates: The bill would bar segregation and specified forms of treatment and punishment. In restrictive confinement, inmates would keep rights and privileges except those requiring association with other inmates, or those limited by security requirements or disciplinary measures.
- Superintendents and correctional staff: Superintendents would have new duties. People who violate the treatment prohibitions could face criminal penalties. The bill does not set out a complaint or investigation process for alleged violations.
- People designing or renovating correctional institutions: New institutions must meet the 20% bed requirement. Renovations and expansions must move the institution closer to it, but the bill gives no deadline for reaching 20%.
- General public: The bill directly changes rules for correctional institutions; it does not directly change taxes, court sentences, or services outside those institutions.
Money#
No publicly available information on estimated public cost.
- The bill requires mental health support units in new institutions and requires renovations or expansions to move existing institutions closer to the bed target. It gives no construction or operating cost.
- The bill requires superintendent plans for lockdowns that avoid segregation under the Correctional Services and Reintegration Act, and requires reviews by an Independent Review Panel. It gives no staffing or administrative cost.
- The bill does not specify new funding or the number of staff needed.
What is unclear#
- The Correctional Services and Reintegration Act was described in the supplied note as not yet in force. The Ministry of Correctional Services Act was described as currently governing correctional institutions. The parent Acts were not supplied, so the existing rules and the precise effect of repealing provisions could not be checked against current law.
- The bill does not define “cruel, inhumane or degrading,” or set standards for what counts as a mental health support unit or adequate mental health care.
- Regulations would set the restrictive-confinement review process and the panel’s composition and quorum. The bill does not set review timelines, give the panel decision-making power, or specify how recommendations must be handled.
- The bill has different start dates for its amendments: some would start only once a provision of the 2018 Act is in force and the bill has received Royal Assent; another group would start six months after Royal Assent. Passage and the eventual start dates are not established by the supplied material.
Case for#
- The bill appears intended to prevent highly isolating confinement and treatment that can harm inmates’ dignity, health, or safety.
- Requiring mental health support units in new institutions, and progress toward them during renovations or expansions, could make mental health care part of facility planning.
- A required review and recommendation process could bring added attention to inmates held in restrictive confinement.
- Setting offences and penalties gives legal force to the treatment prohibitions and the Charter-compliance duty.
Case against#
- The bill sets a 20% bed target for new institutions but does not specify the care, staffing, or treatment standards those units must provide. A bed designation alone may not show what care inmates receive.
- The bill does not set a deadline for existing institutions to reach 20%, and requires renovations or expansions only to move them closer.
- The panel’s reviews and recommendations depend on future regulations, and the bill does not require the superintendent to follow its recommendations.
- Broad terms such as “cruel, inhumane or degrading” and “reasonably necessary” may leave important questions about how the prohibitions apply to particular situations.