Balancing Privacy Rights and Personal Safety in Domestic Violence Prevention in Alberta

What if knowing the truth could save a life?

Should asking questions about a partner’s past really be considered an invasion of privacy, or is it an act of self-protection?

In 2021, Canada took a significant step toward prevention by adopting the Domestic Violence Disclosure Scheme (DVDS), widely known as Clare’s Law. This law gives individuals the right to know whether a current or former romantic partner has a history of violence or abuse. It also allows concerned friends or family members to step in and request information when they fear someone they love may be at risk.

But why is it called Clare’s Law?

The answer lies in a tragic and powerful story. Clare’s Law was created by Michael Brown in memory of his daughter, Clare Wood, who was murdered in 2009 by her ex-boyfriend—a man with a known history of intimate partner violence. Following a tireless campaign led by her father, the law was formally introduced in England and Wales in 2014. Michael Brown has consistently maintained that had his daughter been aware of her ex-partner’s violent past, her life might have been saved.

Today, Canada carries that legacy forward. Clare’s Law is currently in force in Alberta, under the Disclosure to Protect Against Domestic Violence Act, and in Saskatchewan, through the Interpersonal Violence Disclosure Protocol. In both provinces, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) play a central role where they serve as the police of jurisdiction.

So who can ask—and who is protected?

In Alberta, the right to ask is available to individuals who are at risk of intimate partner violence, including:

Residents of Alberta who fear harm; Individuals currently in, or previously involved in, an intimate partner relationship with the person of concern; Those who worry that a partner or former partner may cause emotional or physical harm; Individuals who have met the person of disclosure in real life; and Those willing to meet with police to receive sensitive disclosure information.

Eligible individuals have the right to submit a request for information about a current or former partner. After careful review, police may choose to disclose relevant information either to the person at risk or to the individual who raised the concern.

In addition, Clare’s Law recognizes that waiting can be dangerous. Under the right to know, police are permitted to proactively disclose information when checks reveal a history of intimate partner violence—even if no request has been made—where disclosure is necessary to prevent harm.

Importantly, the person who is the subject of disclosure is not informed of the request, and any information shared remains strictly confidential and cannot be used in legal proceedings or disclosed to third parties. Ultimately, Clare’s Law demonstrates that protecting individuals from harm must take precedence over rigid interpretations of privacy. The law is carefully structured to balance both interests by ensuring confidentiality, limiting disclosure, and protecting applicants from retaliation.

By allowing individuals to make informed decisions about their safety, Clare’s Law affirms a critical principle: seeking information in the face of potential danger is not an invasion of privacy, but an act of self-preservation. When lives are at risk, the right to safety must not be silenced by the fear of asking the necessary questions.