Not All NDAs Are the Same: Why Survivor-Centered Legislation Must Address Childhood Sexual Abuse

In recent years, more and more lawmakers have begun to question the role of non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) in silencing survivors of harm. Some have introduced or passed legislation to restrict NDAs in workplace harassment cases—an important and overdue step. But not all NDAs are the same. The power dynamics, timelines, and consequences differ dramatically when NDAs are used to cover up child sexual abuse. At The Restitution Project, that’s where our focus lies: ending the use of NDAs in cases of childhood sexual abuse and assault.

Workplace-related NDA reform is often framed around preventing misconduct in professional environments. These laws aim to stop employers from forcing silence as a condition of settlement and to allow workers to speak out about toxic or abusive behaviour. Prince Edward Island was the first province in Canada to pass legislation restricting the misuse of NDAs in this way. Under its Non-Disclosure Agreements Act (2022), NDAs can only be included in settlements involving harassment or discrimination if the survivor explicitly requests it, and even then, there are conditions: the survivor must receive independent legal advice, and the NDA must be time-limited and revocable.

Ontario attempted to follow with Bill 124, the Stopping the Misuse of Non-Disclosure Agreements Act in 2023. The bill would have prohibited NDAs in cases of workplace harassment or assault unless the survivor specifically asked for one and had access to legal counsel. However, the bill did not advance beyond first reading. As of now, Ontario has not passed any legislation regulating the use of NDAs in these contexts.

These reforms—or efforts toward reform—are important. They push back against the routine use of NDAs to bury misconduct and protect serial offenders. They give workers more control over their own stories and make it harder for powerful institutions to prioritize reputation over justice. But workplace-focused efforts, passed or proposed, are narrow in scope. They do not—and were never intended to—address the realities of survivors who were harmed as children.

Child sexual abuse cases often have nothing to do with employment relationships. Survivors may come forward decades later, long after the abuse occurred in schools, homes, sports programs, or religious institutions. By that point, many are emotionally exhausted, financially drained, and isolated. Some sign NDAs in exchange for compensation because they feel they have no other option. Others are threatened with defamation suits or told that silence is the only way to protect their families or reputations. These are not workplace disputes. They are life-altering traumas buried beneath legal language and non-disparagement clauses.

That’s why workplace NDA legislation, while valuable, is not enough. It’s built for adult survivors navigating active employment issues—not for people coming to terms with childhood trauma under conditions of profound imbalance. Workplace laws assume that both parties have access to legal counsel, can make informed decisions in the moment, and have the psychological safety to negotiate freely. That’s simply not the case for most survivors of child sexual abuse. The abuse they experienced often included manipulation, grooming, and threats—tactics that don’t disappear just because a survivor turns 18. The decision to sign an NDA later in life may be made under the lingering influence of those same dynamics.

We need legislation that recognizes this. In 2025, Texas and Missouri passed laws that go much further. Known as Trey’s Law in Texas, the legislation makes NDAs unenforceable in cases involving sexual abuse, assault, or trafficking—including those signed in the past. Survivors can still choose confidentiality, but the law shifts the power: NDAs are only enforceable if the survivor consents through a court process. It’s a survivor-first model, and one that Canada does not yet have.

At The Restitution Project, we advocate for laws that apply retroactively, center survivor autonomy, and refuse to legitimize agreements signed under coercive conditions. Ending the use of NDAs in child sexual abuse cases is not about banning privacy. It’s about removing silence as the default and ensuring survivors have the right to speak without fear of legal retaliation.

Workplace-focused reforms and child-abuse-centered legislation both matter—but they are not interchangeable. One protects employees. The other protects the right to heal, speak, and seek justice after unimaginable harm. Canada needs both. And until all survivors—especially those abused as children—have the legal tools to reclaim their voices, the work is not done.