Creating An Abuse Policy Part 1: What Legal Duties Do Churches Have to Abuse Victims?
One of the most essential and complex policies institutions must create is abuse policies. These policies must reflect the institution’s commitment to preventing abuse, detail how allegations of abuse or suspected abuse must be responded to and delineate how the community or membership must be informed. An abuse policy should also include a framework for how to respond to both victims and perpetrators, considering both the law and best practices.
Over the next several newsletters, we plan to detail key considerations that institutions should consider when creating an abuse policy. In this newsletter, we will lay out four key duties that institutions have towards abuse victims according to Canadian case law. Many institutions—including many that we have worked with—have been unaware of these duties, and institutions become familiar with the full range of their legal obligations only when a crisis actually arrives.
Every institution should carefully consider, at a minimum, the following four duties, each of which has been confirmed by Canadian case law.
Please note that the legislation and case law cited in this newsletter are drawn from Ontario. While the duties discussed reflect broadly applicable principles, the specific statutes and decisions referenced apply in Ontario, and other provinces and territories have enacted analogous—though distinct—legislation and developed their own case law. Institutions outside Ontario should consult counsel regarding the requirements applicable in their jurisdiction.
A duty to report all suspected abuse.
According to the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017 (CYFSA), every person who has reasonable grounds to suspect child abuse or neglect has a duty to report it. The CYFSA further provides that any “director, officer or employee of a corporation” who fails to report even suspected abuse “is guilty of an offence” and subject to enhanced penalties. Institutions should ensure that all relevant parties-including staff, leaders, and volunteers-are aware of this general reporting duty. While the CYFSA only applies in Ontario, other provinces and territories in Canada have passed similar legislation that establishes mandatory reporting requirements in the event of abuse, neglect, or suspected abuse.
In short: institutions have a duty to ensure that suspected child abuse is and has been reported, and that reports meet the legal reporting threshold.
A duty to ensure the minimization of harm, including consulting with relevant professionals.
In V.B. v. C., 2003 OJ No. 2750, the court found that institutions—in this specific case, elders of a church—must be “aware of their own lack of expertise” and “make inquiries of a professional as to how professional harm to the [victims can] be minimized.” Expertise, which is distinct from perceived experience or theological education, is a legal prerequisite in minimization of harm.
In V.B. v. C, the elders had required that an adult complainant attend a meeting and confront her father after she had disclosed childhood sexual abuse. The ruling stated:
[T]he standard of care applicable to psychiatrists, psychologists, or social workers is not the appropriate standard of care against which to measure the conduct of the elders. In the absence of specific evidence as to the standard, it is appropriate to apply the general standard of care for negligence, that of a reasonable person in like circumstances. The elders in this situation had no particular expertise dealing with victims of childhood sexual abuse. They cannot be expected to be familiar with the literature on how to handle disclosure of abuse by vulnerable victims. However…any person in the community…must have known that being a victim of sexual abuse is traumatic and [that harm is foreseeable in making them face their abuser].
In short, despite the intentions of the elders, the court ruled against them and pinpointed their lack of expertise with regard to abuse cases several times. The victim was awarded damages in this case.
A duty to conduct proper investigations.
When abuse or neglect is discovered or reasonably ought to have been known within an institution, the institution has a legal obligation to properly investigate the alleged abuse (Rizzuto v. Hamilton Wentworth Catholic District School Board,2023 ONSC 3829) and make a report as required by mandatory reporting legislation. Investigations must be thorough and include a written report. In D.R. v. Family & Children’s Services of St. Thomas and Elgin, 2025 CFSRB 112 (applying CYFSA s. 120), the Child and Family Services Review Board stipulated that the Children’s Aid Society’s duty to investigate arises when there is evidence of harm but does not apply in instances where there is not evidence (for example, rumors or hearsay). The same standard applies to institutional investigations in exercising their duty of care.
The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario in Kenney v. Thames Valley District School Board 2023 HRTO 1795 noted that hiring an external investigator can be a positive indicator that the duty to conduct a proper and independent investigation is being met.
A duty to provide counselling.
According to the landmark Ontario ruling C.O. v. Williamson, 2020 ONSC 3874, failing to provide professional counselling breaches an institution’s duty of care. (The Trillium Lakelands District School Board was found vicariously liable and negligent in the case of a 16-year-old student abused by a teacher and was ordered to pay $500,000.) V.B. v. C. also established that merely encouraging counselling was not found to be sufficient to fulfill the duty of care.
The Acacia Group accompanies faith-based communities as they navigate integrating their faith and fundamental beliefs in their works, while working within the religious freedoms’ provisions of the applicable human rights codes and Charter, and case law.
Acacia’ team members will assist you in reviewing your employment agreements, policy manuals, by-laws and organizational structure to ensure that it meets legal requirements and reflects your faith traditions.
This newsletter is provided for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. No solicitor-client relationship is created by reading or relying on this newsletter. The information contained herein is current as of the date of publication and may not reflect subsequent legal developments. Readers should consult qualified legal counsel about their specific circumstances.
Jonathon Van Maren is a strategic communications consultant with The Acacia Group, where he supports churches, charities, and faith-based organizations in navigating complex cultural and public issues with clarity and conviction. He is an experienced writer, speaker, and author with more than a decade of leadership in national advocacy, and his work has been widely published across leading North American and European outlets. Drawing on deep expertise in media engagement and crisis communications, he helps clients protect their mission, strengthen their public voice, and advance their work with integrity.