Bill 205 prohibits individuals who committed or are alleged to have committed sexual misconduct (respondents) from entering into non-disclosure agreements with people who experienced or allege they experienced that misconduct (relevant persons). It also bars organizations or other “responsible persons” from making agreements that stop victims or witnesses from filing complaints or participating in investigations under a list of Alberta statutes and federal law.
The law renders any clause that violates those prohibitions void, creates minimum and maximum fines for individuals and entities, exposes corporate officers to personal liability if they authorize violations, and expands the statutory definition of sexual exploitation for child-protection purposes. The Act comes into force on September 1, 2026 and requires periodic legislative review beginning in 2031.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill defines a covered non-disclosure agreement to include settlement or non‑disparagement clauses whose purpose or effect is to conceal sexual misconduct or exploitation. It forbids respondents from entering such agreements and forbids responsible persons from entering agreements that restrict complaints or participation in investigations under specified Alberta and federal enactments.
Who It Affects
The rules apply to individuals alleged to have committed sexual misconduct, victims or complainants, employers and other organizations with a legal duty to prevent sexual misconduct at a location (termed 'responsible persons'), and parties that negotiate settlement agreements in those matters.
Why It Matters
The measure removes a legal tool often used to silence survivors, limits confidentiality provisions in settlements tied to workplace, human rights, and compensation processes, and creates a statutory basis for voiding prior secrecy terms while imposing fines and officer-level liability to encourage compliance.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
Bill 205 draws a clear line around settlement secrecy when the subject is sexual misconduct or sexual exploitation. It starts by defining key players: a "relevant person" is the individual who experienced or alleges the misconduct; a "respondent" is the alleged perpetrator or a responsible person who has a legal duty to prevent misconduct at the place where it occurred.
A "non-disclosure agreement" is not just a labeled NDA — it includes any settlement clause, including non‑disparagement provisions, that has the purpose or effect of concealing details about the sexual conduct in question.
The core prohibitions are twofold. First, an individual respondent cannot enter into a covered non-disclosure agreement with the relevant person.
Second, a responsible person (for example, an employer with a statutory duty to take reasonable steps to prevent sexual misconduct at a workplace) cannot enter into agreements that would stop any person from making disclosures, filing complaints, or participating in investigations under a set list of statutes, including the Employment Standards Code, Occupational Health and Safety Act, Alberta Human Rights Act, Workers' Compensation Act, other Alberta enactments, or federal law. Where a clause or agreement violates those prohibitions, the Act treats the offending parts as void.The Act addresses past arrangements unevenly: it makes the voiding rule applicable to agreements entered into before the law takes effect, while the express prohibitions on entering into new agreements operate only from the coming-into-force date.
Enforcement rests on monetary fines: specified minimum and maximum fines differ for individuals versus corporations and other non‑individuals. The law also allows prosecutors to charge corporate officers, directors, shareholders, employees or agents who direct or acquiesce in an offence, effectively creating potential personal liability tied to corporate misconduct.Beyond the NDA rules, the bill amends the Protection of Sexually Exploited Children Act to broaden the statutory list of conduct and circumstances treated as sexual exploitation — adding explicit examples of coercion or exchange of money, drugs, shelter, food, protection, affection, perceived love or other necessaries for sexual activity — and clarifies that a child subject to sexual exploitation is in need of protection.
The Lieutenant Governor in Council may make regulations for undefined terms, and the Assembly must conduct a special committee review beginning September 1, 2031 and every five years thereafter.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The Act treats a non-disclosure clause as covered if its purpose or effect is to conceal details about sexual misconduct or sexual exploitation, and explicitly includes non‑disparagement clauses that have that effect.
A responsible person is barred from entering agreements that would restrict disclosures, complaints or participation in investigations under named statutes (Employment Standards Code, Occupational Health and Safety Act, Alberta Human Rights Act, Workers' Compensation Act) or under any other Alberta or federal enactment.
Sections that void offending agreements apply to NDAs entered into before or after the Act’s start date, but the rule that forbids entering new NDAs only takes effect after the Act comes into force on September 1, 2026.
Penalties are fixed by category: individuals face fines of $2,000–$10,000; non‑individuals face fines of $10,000–$50,000; and corporate officers or others who authorize or acquiesce can be prosecuted personally for the same offence.
The Act expands the Protection of Sexually Exploited Children Act to list specific forms of coercion and exchanges (money, drugs, shelter, affection, etc.) as sexual exploitation, and makes a child subject to such exploitation automatically 'in need of protection.'.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Definitions and who counts as a respondent, relevant person, and responsible person
This section sets the decisive definitions that shape the rest of the Act. It defines a non‑disclosure agreement by effect — if a clause conceals sexual misconduct or exploitation, it qualifies — and adds non‑disparagement to that reach. It also defines 'responsible person' as someone with a legal duty to take reasonable steps to prevent sexual misconduct where it occurred; that phrase will determine which organizations face the agreement prohibition and may require courts to interpret statutory duties across contexts.
Prohibition on respondents entering secrecy agreements
Section 2 prohibits an individual respondent from entering a covered NDA with a relevant person and declares any agreement void to the extent it violates that bar. Practically, this strips enforceability from confidentiality terms between alleged perpetrators and victims where the term's purpose or effect is concealment, but leaves non‑concealing confidentiality (for example, privacy for medical records) outside the ban unless it masks details of the misconduct.
Prohibition on responsible persons restricting statutory complaints
Section 3 targets organizations and other responsible persons by stopping them from making agreements that would limit a person's ability to make disclosures or participate in investigations under specified statutes and other Alberta or federal enactments. This clause reaches settlement agreements that attempt to waive or limit recourse under labour, safety, human rights or workers' compensation laws and creates a statutory baseline protecting access to administrative and statutory complaint processes.
No contractual waiver of rights created by the Act
Section 4 says the Act applies despite any contrary agreement and makes any waiver or release of the Act’s protections void. That ensures private settlements cannot contract around the Act, and underscores that the statutory protections are mandatory, not optional, rights.
How the Act treats past and future agreements
This transitional rule makes the voiding mechanism in sections 2(2) and 3(2) applicable to pre‑existing agreements, meaning parties cannot rely on older clauses to bar disclosures if those clauses have the prohibited purpose or effect. The separate ban on entering new agreements, however, applies only after the Act’s coming-into-force date, which creates a window where old clauses are invalidated but the prospective criminal prohibition only binds future conduct.
Criminal offences, fines and corporate officer liability
Section 6 creates monetary penalties with set floors and ceilings for individuals and non‑individuals and includes a corporate‑level enforcement hook: officers, directors, shareholders, employees or agents who direct, authorize, permit, participate or acquiesce in an offence may themselves be charged for the same offence. That duplicates corporate accountability onto responsible persons’ senior actors and incentivizes internal controls and legal review before settling.
Regulatory authority for undefined terms
The Lieutenant Governor in Council can make regulations to define terms used but not defined in the Act. This gives the executive scope to clarify ambiguous concepts — for example, what counts as a 'reasonable step' to prevent misconduct or which entities qualify as responsible persons — but also shifts important definitional work out of the legislature and into regulation-making.
Mandatory legislative review schedule
The Act mandates that a special committee begin a comprehensive review by September 1, 2031 and then every five years, with the committee required to report recommended amendments within one year of starting each review. That built‑in review cycle requires the Assembly to reassess operation, enforcement experience and unintended consequences periodically.
Amendments to the Protection of Sexually Exploited Children Act
This section broadens the definition of sexual exploitation to include coercion or exchanges where a child is engaged in sexual activity in return for money, drugs, shelter, food, protection, affection or perceived love, and it clarifies that a child so exploited is in need of protection. These changes align child‑protection law with the NDA prohibitions by expanding what qualifies as exploitative conduct for which secrecy clauses could no longer be used.
Commencement
The Act comes into force on September 1, 2026. That specific start date gives parties a clear compliance deadline and creates the transitional dynamic in section 5 where certain provisions operate retroactively on existing agreements while prohibitions on entering new agreements apply only from this date forward.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on this topic across all five countries.
Explore this topic in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Survivors and complainants of sexual misconduct — the Act prevents perpetrators and institutions from using settlement terms to silence them, preserving their ability to disclose, complain, or participate in statutory investigations.
- Regulatory and enforcement bodies (labour, human rights, workplace safety, workers’ compensation) — the law protects their jurisdiction by barring private settlements that would limit access to statutory complaint and investigative channels.
- Children at risk of sexual exploitation — the expanded statutory definition in the child‑protection act brings more conduct within mandatory protection frameworks and clarifies when a child is 'in need of protection.'
- Advocacy organizations and unions — the Act reduces a common obstacle to public accountability and may strengthen collective efforts to bring systemic concerns to administrative or public forums.
Who Bears the Cost
- Employers, educational institutions and other responsible persons — they may lose a common settlement tool, face higher exposure to public complaint processes, and need to revisit settlement practice, confidentiality clauses and training obligations.
- Insurers and defence counsel — reduced ability to resolve claims privately could increase litigation or statutory proceedings, raising legal costs and insurance claims exposure.
- Small organizations and third parties negotiating settlements — businesses relying on confidentiality as part of dispute resolution may need new protocols and legal advice to ensure compliance, imposing administrative and transactional costs.
- Corporate officers and senior managers — the personal‑liability provision makes officers liable if they authorize or acquiesce in violations, increasing governance and compliance burden at the leadership level.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is between safeguarding survivors’ ability to speak and participate in statutory processes and preserving parties’ ability to resolve disputes privately — including legitimate privacy interests and safe exit options for complainants — with the Act prioritizing public accountability but leaving open how to protect legitimate confidentiality and safety concerns without re‑creating secrecy.
The Act advances survivor access to statutory remedies by voiding clauses that conceal sexual misconduct, but it leaves several implementation questions unresolved. 'Responsible person' is tied to a duty to take 'reasonable steps' to prevent misconduct at the place where it occurred — language that courts may interpret case‑by‑case and that could create uncertainty for organizations about when the prohibition applies. The regulatory power to define undefined terms gives the executive branch substantial scope to fill gaps, yet delegates important boundaries away from the legislature.
Retroactivity is a deliberate but awkward feature: the Act voids prior confidentiality terms (sections 2(2) and 3(2)) while criminalizing the act of entering prohibited agreements only prospectively. That design protects disclosures already silenced, but it raises questions about remedies for past coercion, the evidentiary threshold to demonstrate a clause's 'purpose or effect' of concealment, and whether compensation agreements that included confidentiality for privacy reasons may be unintentionally swept up.
Enforcement will rely on fines and possible prosecutions, and the Act does not create a statutory private right of action or a specific administrative enforcement regime, which may limit practical redress and shift caseloads to existing tribunals and prosecutors.
There's more to this law than the bill.
Codify Laws traces every connection across the legislative lifecycle.