Ontario Ends Solitary Confinement, Boosts Mental Health Care

Summary#

This Ontario bill would change jail rules to end solitary confinement and improve mental health care for people in custody. It bans cruel or degrading treatment, sets penalties for violations, and creates outside reviews for people held in tight restrictions. It also requires more mental health beds in new and expanded jails.

• Requires at least 20% of beds in any new jail to be in a mental health support unit; renovations and expansions must move toward that target. Regulations can raise the percentage for some sites.
• Bans “segregation” (solitary confinement) defined as keeping someone highly restricted in movement and contact with others for 22 hours or more a day.
• Defines “restrictive confinement” (tight limits that are less than segregation) and says people in it keep the same rights and programs as others, with changes only as needed for safety.
• Prohibits cruel, inhumane, or degrading treatment, including excessive restraints or surveillance, sensory deprivation, and depriving food, exercise, human contact, or medical care.
• Requires jail superintendents to ensure treatment complies with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms; breaking these rules can bring fines up to $100,000, up to two years in jail, or both.
• Sets up an Independent Review Panel to review cases of restrictive confinement and recommend changes.
• Requires lockdown plans to avoid creating conditions that amount to segregation.
• Most parts take effect on Royal Assent or six months after, depending on which correctional law is in force.

What it means for you#

• Incarcerated people

  • No solitary confinement for 22 hours or more a day.
  • If you are in restrictive confinement, you must still get access to programs and services, adjusted only as needed for safety.
  • Protection from harsh treatment like excessive restraints, constant surveillance beyond what safety needs, or losing basics like food, exercise, human contact, or medical care.
  • More access to mental health care because more beds must be in mental health support units.
  • An Independent Review Panel will look at restrictive confinement cases and can recommend changes to your conditions.

• Families and loved ones

  • Stronger guarantees of humane treatment and access to mental health care for relatives in custody.
  • Clearer limits on isolation and a process for outside review of restrictive confinement.

• Correctional staff and managers

  • Must end the use of segregation and adjust operations so lockdowns do not create segregation conditions.
  • Need to offer programs and services to people in restrictive confinement, with tailored delivery.
  • Face new penalties if treatment violates the Charter or the ban on cruel or degrading practices.
  • Will work with an Independent Review Panel and follow any regulations on reviews and panel makeup.
  • Planning, training, and staffing may need to change to meet mental health bed targets and new care standards.

• Health and mental health providers

  • Likely more roles in jails due to the required mental health support units and access to medical observation and treatment.

Expenses#

No publicly available information.

Proponents' View#

• Ending solitary confinement protects human dignity and mental health, and aligns with Charter rights.
• More mental health beds mean better care, fewer crises, and better chances of rehabilitation.
• Clear bans on harsh practices, with real penalties, will reduce abuse and improve safety for everyone in the facility.
• Independent reviews add transparency and help fix problems sooner.
• Requiring lockdown plans that avoid segregation prevents long isolation during emergencies.

Opponents' View#

• Banning segregation may remove a key tool for managing violent or high‑risk inmates, which could threaten safety.
• Building or converting 20% of beds to mental health units, hiring clinicians, and running review panels could be costly and hard to staff.
• Terms like “restrictive confinement” and “reasonably necessary” may be unclear, creating legal risk and hesitation in split‑second decisions.
• New fines and possible jail time for violations may make it harder to recruit and retain staff.
• Avoiding segregation during lockdowns may be difficult in older, crowded jails, risking more frequent disruptions or transfers.