Ontario Domestic Violence Coordination Framework
Comprehensive partnership, integration, and DV response guidelines for organizations serving Ontario.
Ontario: Regional Coordination and Service Ecosystem Overview
Purpose and Scope
This page outlines coordination considerations for organizations operating in Ontario, with emphasis on the Toronto/GTA ecosystem, provincial service networks, legal aid collaboration, and engagement with Indigenous and northern communities. The focus is on cross-agency alignment, referral pathways, data practices, and governance options rather than direct service delivery guidance.
Ontario Service Ecosystem Overview
Ontario’s domestic violence-related ecosystem is characterized by:
- Large, dense service networks in the Toronto/GTA area with multiple overlapping mandates
- Provincial umbrella bodies, networks, and funder-driven collaboratives
- Distinct legal aid coordination structures and specialized legal clinics
- Regionally specific dynamics in northern, rural, remote, and Indigenous communities
Coordinated approaches benefit from clear role definition, consistent referral protocols, and shared minimum information standards across these varied environments.
Toronto/GTA Ecosystem: Coordination Considerations
The Toronto/GTA region typically includes a high density of:
- Violence against women shelters and transition houses
- Family services and settlement agencies
- Hospital-based and community-based interdisciplinary teams
- Legal clinics, legal aid offices, and specialized legal programs
- Mental health and addictions agencies
- Municipal, regional, and provincial program funders
Common Coordination Challenges in the GTA
- Service overlap: Multiple agencies accepting similar referrals without shared screening or triage frameworks.
- Fragmented information flows: Different case management and record systems with limited interoperability.
- Complex referral routing: High volume of referrals across sectors (housing, legal, child welfare, health) without standardized expectations.
- Cultural and linguistic diversity: Need for coordinated access to interpreters and culturally specific organizations.
GTA Coordination Models and Options
Organizations in the GTA may consider the following models:
- Hub-and-spoke referral model: Designating one or more “coordination hubs” (e.g., a central intake or collaborative table) that route referrals to specialized “spoke” agencies according to agreed criteria.
- Sector-based working groups: Standing interagency tables (e.g., housing, legal, health, settlement) with agreed protocols for:
- Standard referral forms and required fields
- Expected response times between agencies
- Escalation pathways when capacity is constrained
- Shared service directories: Regularly updated, jointly governed inventories that identify eligibility, capacity notes, and contact channels across the GTA.
- Co-located or virtual service clusters: Scheduled clinics (in-person or virtual) where multiple agencies meet with clients in a single location or shared digital environment according to pre-set roles.
Operational Priorities for GTA Partners
Toronto/GTA partners often benefit from formalizing:
- Standardized intake data sets to support warm transfer and reduce service duplication
- Shared, non-identifying case discussion protocols for complex, cross-system cases
- Mutual expectations around participation in case conferences, court support, and housing coordination meetings
- Communication protocols for capacity changes (e.g., temporary closure, waitlist expansion, new programs)
GTA agencies developing or revising MOUs may align provisions with broader partnership criteria and governance options described in /coalition-frameworks.html.
Provincial-Level Service Networks
Across Ontario, domestic-violence-related organizations often participate in provincial networks and coalitions that span:
- Shelters and second-stage housing providers
- Sexual assault and gender-based violence centres
- Family service agencies and child and family service providers
- Indigenous-led organizations and Friendship Centres
- Legal aid and community legal clinics
- Health, mental health, and addictions providers
Functions of Provincial Networks
Common functions include:
- Policy alignment: Coordinating positions in response to provincial policy, funding frameworks, and program standards.
- Training and capacity-building: Joint training calendars, shared curricula, and common orientation resources for new staff.
- Data and reporting: Development of common indicators, templates, and definitions to support cross-agency reporting.
- Resource exchange: Peer-to-peer consultation, template sharing (e.g., MOUs, consent forms, data-sharing agreements), and coordinated procurement where appropriate.
Network Participation Models
Ontario organizations may engage in provincial networks using different models:
- Formal membership structures: Defined eligibility criteria, membership categories (e.g., full, associate, observer), and governance rules.
- Issue-specific coalitions: Temporary or standing groups focused on specific themes (e.g., housing, family law, technology-facilitated abuse) with clear workplans and deliverables.
- Regional clusters within provincial networks: Sub-groups for GTA, eastern, central, southwestern, and northern Ontario to address context-specific operational issues.
Aligning Agency Operations with Provincial Networks
Agencies can strengthen coordination with provincial networks by:
- Identifying a designated liaison for provincial working groups and consultations
- Documenting how provincial guidance will be implemented at the organizational level (e.g., via internal policies or practice notes)
- Aligning internal reporting fields with provincial indicators where feasible
- Ensuring leadership participates in key governance decisions affecting regional operations
Legal Aid and Legal Services Coordination
Legal coordination in Ontario typically involves Legal Aid structures, community legal clinics, specialized family and immigration law services, and justice sector partners. Agencies may participate in:
- Shared intake or referral processes with legal aid offices and clinics
- Joint clinics at shelters, community hubs, or online platforms
- Cross-training between legal and non-legal staff
Legal Aid Coordination Models
Common models include:
- Embedded legal supports: Legal clinic lawyers or Legal Aid staff providing scheduled on-site or virtual hours within community agencies.
- Centralized legal triage: One coordination point assessing legal needs (family, immigration, criminal, housing) and routing to appropriate services.
- Court support collaboration: Agreements defining roles in supporting court attendance (e.g., duty counsel coordination, accompaniment by community workers, information exchange with consent).
Key Elements for Legal Coordination Agreements
When designing MOUs or protocols with legal aid and clinics, organizations commonly address:
- Scope of services (family, criminal, child protection, immigration, housing, income security)
- Eligibility screening roles and information flow between agencies
- Appointment booking expectations and communication methods
- Consent processes for information sharing and case coordination
- Conflict of interest procedures and alternate referral options
- Joint training commitments (e.g., violence dynamics, legal process updates, documentation standards)
Agencies considering new legal aid partnerships may find it useful to first define organizational eligibility criteria and partnership expectations as outlined in /partnership-eligibility.html before negotiating detailed agreements.
Indigenous and Northern Communities
Ontario includes significant Indigenous populations and large northern, rural, and remote regions with distinct service realities. Many communities operate Indigenous-led and community-based programs that interface with provincial and federal systems.
Service Environment in Northern and Remote Regions
Key characteristics often include:
- Limited local service providers with broad mandates
- Travel, weather, and connectivity constraints affecting access
- Significant distances to full-service hospitals, courts, and legal aid offices
- Higher reliance on virtual services, visiting professionals, and itinerant teams
Coordination with Indigenous-Led Organizations
Partnerships with Indigenous-led services may focus on:
- Respecting community governance structures and decision-making processes
- Developing protocols that recognize community-based justice, wellness, and healing approaches
- Clarifying how provincial and federal programs intersect with community services
- Ensuring referral pathways do not override or duplicate Indigenous-led systems
Operational alignment can be supported by:
- Jointly developed MOUs that recognize distinct mandates and accountabilities
- Clear guidelines on when and how external agencies engage, including expectations for advance notice and follow-up
- Shared approaches to data stewardship, including decisions about data storage location, access, and aggregation
Northern Interagency Coordination Models
In northern Ontario, agencies frequently rely on flexible coordination structures, such as:
- Multi-purpose interagency tables: One table addressing multiple concerns (violence, housing, mental health, substance use) with agreed information boundaries and meeting protocols.
- Rotating host models: Different agencies or communities hosting regular coordination meetings to balance travel burden and ownership.
- Virtual collaboration protocols: Scheduled video or phone-based case discussions, with shared templates for agenda and follow-up actions.
- Joint service planning: Coordinated planning for visiting professionals (legal clinics, health providers, specialized counsellors) to maximize impact of each visit.
Data and Information-Sharing Practices in Ontario
Across Ontario, organizations generally benefit from aligning on:
- Minimum data elements for referrals and case coordination
- Standard definitions for key indicators used in reports to funders and networks
- Processes for aggregate data sharing to support regional planning
- Documentation of consent and information-sharing decisions in interagency settings
In both GTA and northern contexts, it is useful to distinguish between:
- Operational data sharing: Information used for case coordination and referrals
- Planning and evaluation data: De-identified or aggregate data used to understand service access, demand, and gaps
- Advocacy data: Aggregated information used for policy engagement at municipal, provincial, or federal levels
Governance and Partnership Structures in Ontario
Ontario organizations often participate in multiple, overlapping governance and partnership structures, such as:
- Local or regional domestic violence coordinating committees
- Municipal or regional community safety and well-being tables
- Health system and Ontario Health Team structures where relevant
- Provincial coalitions and working groups
When mapping governance participation, agencies may:
- Identify where they hold leadership, member, or observer roles
- Align internal decision-making and delegation with external commitments
- Clarify which tables are responsible for which types of decisions (strategy, operations, data standards, advocacy positions)
Additional coordination resources are available through the broader ecosystem hosted at DV.Support, which can complement Ontario-based networks and frameworks.