Last week, I wrote about the current regime of protection orders in Ontario, looking at what they offer survivors of intimate partner violence. Often criticized for not delivering the protection they promise, the Law Commission of Ontario (LCO) has undertaken an examination of why this is so.
The LCO is an independent, not-for-profit law reform organization that works with legal professionals and organizations, non-governmental organizations, academics, governments and members of the public to improve Ontario’s laws.
In introducing this project, the LCO notes:
“At least 434 people – mostly women and children – were murdered in acts of intimate partner violence across the province from 2003 to 2021, according to Ontario’s Domestic Violence Death Review Committee. Most cases had a history of violence, and in a quarter of cases the perpetrator had breached a protection order or other court order. . . .
“The LCO aims to modernize protection order laws and process to improve access and effectiveness. We’re examining how protection orders work in practice including issues of access, process, evidence, conditions, duration and enforcement. We’re also considering whether Ontario should introduce standalone civil protection order legislation, and how to improve coordination across systems.”
In late 2025, the LCO released its consultation paper, which sets out key issues, reform options and questions for feedback. Earlier this month, it published the results of two surveys conducted in 2025: one with community members and one with professionals.
The information gathered in both surveys is remarkably similar and seems to support what survivors and advocates have known for a long time: protection orders are a good idea, but the current regime just doesn’t work.
A promise not delivered
The LCO spoke with 80 people who had lived experience with protection orders. Nearly everyone – 94% of survey participants – felt that protection orders are an important tool for safety, but 63% said they don’t work well. Participants identified many systemic issues, including lack of enforcement, poor coordination across systems and lack of understanding about IPV among lawyers, judges and police.
Forty-four percent of those who had been granted a protection order said that it “somewhat” improved their safety, 19% said it improved their safety significantly and 38% found it did little to make them safer. Breaches were common and enforcement inconsistent. While 78% said they had reported breaches to the authorities, 39% said no action was taken. Half the survey participants were dissatisfied with law enforcement responses, but 31% were satisfied or very satisfied.
Participants were disappointed with the application process, describing it as overwhelming, slow and inaccessible. Many reported a significant emotional toll that left them feeling both unsafe and unheard.
Further, participants reported that conditions in their protection orders were vague or generic and that, generally, the orders ran for too short a time to provide meaningful protection.
Recommendations from these survey participants included expanding education and training on IPV, including coercive control, for police, judges, lawyers and others; making weapons prohibitions automatic and penalties for breaches tougher as well as using electronic monitoring technology; simplifying the process and reducing wait times;; enhancing coordination between the criminal and family systems and ensuring the voices of survivors are heard when reforming policy. They also suggested getting rid of boiler plate conditions in favour of conditions tailored to the facts of each case.
A profound mismatch
More than 250 professionals – gender-based violence, legal, victim service workers and others – completed the survey. Their responses were startlingly similar to those from community respondents.
Almost exactly the same proportion – 93% — said that protection orders are an important tool for safety in cases of IPV. However, a mere 21% said they work well in Ontario, citing the lack of consistent consequences for breaches, limited enforcement, reluctance on the part of judges to grant or tailor-make orders, ongoing myths and stereotypes about IPV, a lack of training for professionals and mistrust by many survivors of police, courts and child protection authorities.
Professionals described the processes for getting protection orders as slow, confusing, complex and inconsistent, with 77% saying that getting an order is difficult.
All of the professionals who participated in this survey said that it is particularly challenging to produce evidence of non-physical violence and that trauma and other factors interfere with survivors’ ability to collect and present evidence. Not surprisingly, this has meant that protection orders are least often granted in situations involving coercive control and emotional or financial abuse.
As with participants in the community survey, professionals noted the lack of conditions tailored to the specific facts of individual cases.
Breaches were noted as a significant concern, with 82% of participants saying that they occur “almost always or often,” leading to a mistrust in the system by survivors. Three-quarters of these respondents also noted that they frequently see families involved with multiple systems, with 84% of them noting conflicting orders across theses systems.
Recommendations from the professionals were, like the concerns, similar to those made by the community respondents: a need for stronger enforcement and standardized consequences; more training; better coordination across systems; better wrap-around supports for survivors and a survivor-centred, trauma-informed approach to change.
In addition, almost 50% of these respondents called for legislation to establish standalone civil protection orders and nearly three-quarters supported restorative or transformative justice options.
Where does this leave us?
The results of these surveys provide compelling evidence of the need for significant reform to the current protection order regime: changes to the legislation itself as well as to its implementation and enforcement and education for all those involved. Both those with lived experience and professionals call for similar changes and speak to the need for reforms to reflect survivor-centred and trauma-informed approaches, which is critical. Broadening the thinking to include possible use of restorative or transformative justice models to create safety for survivors of IPV is exciting.
As the LCO says:
“Overall, the findings from both surveys underscore an urgent need for systemic change. Protection orders remain a vital tool, but without meaningful reform, they risk becoming symbolic gestures rather than effective mechanisms for safety.”