Duty to warn
Duty to warn in Ontario: when a psychotherapist may break confidentiality
Facts checked against CRPO's and Ontario's official sources on October 22, 2026.
Ontario has no general statute that requires a psychotherapist to warn someone a client has threatened. What it has is a permission. Under PHIPA, an RP may disclose personal health information without consent when they believe on reasonable grounds that it is necessary to eliminate or reduce a significant risk of serious bodily harm to a person or group, and CRPO's standard says that where the risk is significant and imminent there may be a professional and legal duty to warn. The Supreme Court's Smith v. Jones factors, weighed together, decide when the line is crossed: clarity (an identifiable person or group), seriousness (death or serious bodily harm, psychological included) and imminence.
Permission, not a general duty
This is the most common error in the area: treating a "may" as a "must", or the reverse.
- PHIPA section 40 (1): a custodian "may disclose personal health information about an individual if the custodian believes on reasonable grounds that the disclosure is necessary for the purpose of eliminating or reducing a significant risk of serious bodily harm to a person or group of persons."
- CRPO Standard 3.1 (Confidentiality) lists this among the notable limits to confidentiality, for a significant risk of serious harm, physical or psychological, to the client or anyone else, for example suicide or homicide. It adds that where a registrant believes there is a significant and imminent risk of serious bodily harm, "there may be a professional and legal duty to warn the intended victim", contact the police or crisis services, or inform a physician involved in the client's care.
- CRPO notes that Canadian law on the duty to warn is complex and evolving, and advises registrants to consult legal counsel when it may apply.
Mandatory reports are a different thing. A child who may need protection must be reported to a children's aid society, whatever the client wants. Those duties are in the duty to report guide.
The Smith v. Jones test
In Smith v. Jones, [1999] 1 S.C.R. 455, the Supreme Court of Canada held that even solicitor-client privilege gives way when public safety is at stake. At paragraph 77 it set out the factors: "First, is there a clear risk to an identifiable person or group of persons? Second, is there a risk of serious bodily harm or death? Third, is the danger imminent?"
| Factor | What to look for |
|---|---|
| Clarity | A specific, identifiable person or group; planning, a method, a history of violence |
| Seriousness | Serious bodily harm or death; serious psychological harm counts; a planned fraud does not |
| Imminence | An urgency that calls for action; a detailed, credible threat can qualify without a set date |
The Court said the factors overlap and must be weighed together. A practical fourth question: is there a less intrusive way to protect the person at risk?
How to act when the test is met
The clinical sequence matters as much as the legal test.
- Assess first. Ask about plan, means, intent and target before deciding anything. Calling police before you have assessed is a negative even where calling them would turn out to be right.
- Work with the client. Many clients will take part in a safety plan or agree to a disclosure. Consider whether telling them is safe and helpful, and tell them where it is.
- Consult early. A supervisor, a colleague, legal counsel or CRPO's practice advice service.
- Disclose the minimum to the person who can act. That may be the intended victim, the police, crisis services or the client's physician. Share only what the risk requires and leave out unrelated history.
- Document. The date and time, the grounds, who you consulted, exactly what you disclosed and to whom, and your reasoning.
How it shows up on the exam
Simulations test both directions. Options that warn too soon (before assessment), too widely (the whole file, a family member who cannot reduce the risk) or as if the law required it automatically are weighted negative. So are options that keep silent when a client describes a specific plan to hurt an identifiable person. The best options assess, involve the client, consult and then disclose only what is needed. The library module Mandatory Reporting and the Limits of Confidentiality sets out every reporting duty and permission in one table, and the free diagnostic includes the legal and ethical areas of the exam.
Common questions
Is there a duty to warn in Ontario?
There is no general statutory duty. PHIPA permits disclosure to reduce a significant risk of serious bodily harm, and CRPO's standard says a professional and legal duty to warn may arise when the risk is significant and imminent.
Does serious harm include psychological harm?
Yes. CRPO's confidentiality standard includes physical or psychological harm, and Smith v. Jones accepts serious psychological harm as serious bodily harm.
Who should I tell when the risk is real?
The person who can reduce it: the intended victim, the police or crisis services, or a physician involved in the client's care. Disclose only what is necessary.
Should I tell the client before disclosing?
Where it is safe and will not increase the risk, yes. Consider the therapeutic and safety effects first, and document your decision either way.