Bill 24 revises Alberta’s Bill of Rights to explicitly recognize property rights (including just compensation for takings), a right to refuse medical treatment and vaccines, and a right to acquire and use firearms within the law. It also adds a limits clause, clarifies that inconsistent Alberta laws are of no force, creates a court-based enforcement route but bars damages for infringements caused by Acts, and gives the Legislature an express notwithstanding escape valve.
For professionals: the amendments reshape the legal landscape for expropriation, public-health mandates, regulatory controls that affect property use, and litigation strategy against the Crown. The changes raise immediate compliance, budgeting and litigation questions for government bodies, public-health authorities, municipalities and anyone whose activities depend on provincial regulation or property use.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill inserts new rights into the Alberta Bill of Rights: express property protections (including a statutory definition of 'taking' and a just-compensation guarantee), explicit refusal-of-treatment and vaccine-consent rights, and a firearms possession right 'in accordance with the law.' It adds an enforceability provision allowing court remedies but disallows claims for damages when the infringement is caused by an Act. It also requires 14 days' written notice to the Minister of Justice before a law can be found invalid and lets the Legislature declare a law operates notwithstanding this Act.
Who It Affects
Provincial ministries and agencies, municipalities and expropriating authorities, public-health officials implementing vaccine or treatment mandates, courts handling rights challenges, and individuals with property or medical-autonomy claims — plus firearm owners whose possession is regulated by provincial or federal law.
Why It Matters
The amendments convert several policy matters that were primarily statutory or administrative into enforceable constitutional-style rights under Alberta law. That raises the fiscal risk of compensation claims, constrains public-health tools, and creates new litigation pathways while preserving a legislative override that can blunt judicial remedies.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
Bill 24 restructures the Alberta Bill of Rights to make several substantive additions and procedural changes. It revises the preamble to declare the province is founded on the supremacy of God and the rule of law, and it restates that rights remain important even in emergencies.
The bill adds a definitions section that clarifies what counts as a 'law of Alberta' and defines 'taking of property' to include transfers without consent and situations that deprive owners of all reasonable uses of their property.
Substantively, the bill removes 'enjoyment of property' from the original single clause and reintroduces property protections as separate rights: a right to enjoy property except as authorized by law and due process, and a specific protection against takings unless authorized by law and accompanied by just compensation. It adds an explicit individual right not to be subjected to medical care, treatment or procedures without consent (with a carve-out where the person is likely to cause substantial harm to themselves or others) and an express, separate clause stating the individual with capacity cannot be forced to receive a vaccine.
The bill also adds 'expression' to freedom of speech and recognizes a right to acquire, keep and use firearms 'in accordance with the law.'On remedies and process, Bill 24 gives any person whose rights are infringed a statutory cause of action to apply to a competent court for 'appropriate and just' remedies, but it precludes damages claims for infringements that result from the enactment of an Act. The bill tightens court notification and Crown participation rules: a party seeking to invalidate an Alberta law must give 14 days’ written notice to the Minister of Justice with particulars, and the Minister has an automatic right to be heard and is deemed a party for appeal purposes if they appear.
The Legislature retains the ability to expressly declare in an Act that the law operates notwithstanding the Bill of Rights. Transitional rules limit the amendments’ retroactivity: ongoing or past infringements and certain ongoing property disputes are carved out so that the new text does not reopen finished matters.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill defines 'taking of property' to include a transfer of ownership without consent or depriving an owner of all reasonable uses of property.
A plaintiff may apply to a court for remedies for rights infringements, but the bill prohibits claims for damages when the infringement was caused by the enactment of an Act.
Before a court may declare an Alberta law invalid for inconsistency with the Bill of Rights, the challenger must give 14 days’ written notice to the Minister of Justice describing the law and the proposed argument.
The Legislature may include an express notwithstanding clause in subsequent Acts (section 2.1), allowing laws to operate despite inconsistency with the Bill of Rights.
The Proceedings Against the Crown Act is amended so section 17’s general restriction on injunctions against the Crown does not apply to relief sought under the Alberta Bill of Rights, potentially permitting injunctions or specific performance against the Crown in rights cases.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Adds 'rule of law' and emergency recognition
The preamble now links Alberta’s founding principles to both the supremacy of God and the rule of law and explicitly states that human rights remain foundational even during emergencies. Preambles carry interpretive weight; this framing signals the Legislature’s intent to treat these rights as central to the province’s constitutional posture and to push back against emergency measures that might otherwise be justified solely on expediency.
Clarifies scope and defines 'taking of property'
The bill creates a definitions block: 'law of Alberta' expressly includes Acts, orders, regulations and pre‑commencement laws subject to repeal. It defines 'taking of property' to cover non-consensual transfers and situations where an owner is deprived of all reasonable uses — language that reaches both classic expropriations and regulatory takings-style claims. The application clause makes clear the Bill applies to the Legislature and government in areas within provincial authority, focusing challenges on provincial rather than federal competence.
Repackages and expands protected rights
The bill separates property protections into standalone clauses: one guaranteeing enjoyment of property except as authorized by law and due process, and another promising no taking without authorization and 'just compensation.' It adds an explicit refusal-of-treatment right with a narrowly worded public-safety exception (likely-causing-substantial-harm), a separate absolute-sounding vaccine-consent clause for people with capacity, expands 'freedom of speech' to 'freedom of speech and expression,' and recognizes a right to acquire and use firearms 'in accordance with the law.' These provisions change where and how provincial policies (health mandates, regulatory limits on land use, firearm licensing) will be assessed in court.
Introduces a demonstrably-justified limits test
The bill inserts a Charter-like provision: all rights are 'subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic Alberta,' and such limits are not 'infringements' if justified. The text echoes the Oakes test conceptually but applies it under provincial law. Courts will have to develop an Alberta-specific jurisprudence to interpret 'demonstrably justified' and to balance the new rights against statutory objectives.
Inconsistency rule plus express override power
The bill replaces the older construction requirement with a clear statement that any Alberta law inconsistent with the Bill is of no force to the extent of the inconsistency, while also adding a new subsection allowing the Legislature to declare in an Act that it operates notwithstanding this Bill. Practically, this creates a strong rights floor but preserves a statutory escape valve for the Legislature, turning judicial review into a political as well as legal decision in contested policy areas.
Court remedy route, damages bar for Acts, and Ministerial notice
Anyone whose rights are denied may apply to a court for 'appropriate and just' relief, but the statutory prohibition bars damages claims when the denial stems directly from an Act’s enactment. The bill also mandates 14 days’ written notice to the Minister of Justice before any ruling invalidating provincial law, requires particulars of the challenge, grants the Minister an automatic right to be heard and deems the Minister a party for appellate purposes if they appear. Those procedural features centralize the Crown in litigation strategy and lengthen pre-adjudication process.
Limits retroactivity and amends expropriation/proceedings rules
Transitional rules limit the new text’s retroactive effect: the Act generally does not apply to infringements or denials that occurred before it came into force, and it narrows application to future infringements, with specific carve-outs for property disputes already before the courts. The Expropriation Act schedule is updated to reference the Alberta Bill of Rights, and the Proceedings Against the Crown Act is amended so its usual bar on injunctions against the Crown does not apply to rights relief under the Bill — a change that can materially widen available remedies against provincial actors.
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
- Private property owners and developers — The statutory takings definition plus an explicit just-compensation guarantee strengthens claimants’ positions against regulatory deprivations and formal expropriations, increasing the likelihood of compensation or injunctive relief when provincial action affects use or ownership.
- Individuals asserting bodily autonomy — The new, express rights to refuse medical care and to refuse vaccines create an independent provincial cause of action to challenge treatment or mandate orders affecting competent adults.
- Firearm owners and associations — The explicit right to acquire, keep and use firearms 'in accordance with the law' provides a statutory basis to challenge provincial measures that they view as unduly restrictive, even though federal criminal law still governs licensing and safe-storage requirements.
- Litigants seeking proactive remedies — Removal of section 17’s blanket bar (as amended) and the creation of an express remedy pathway mean courts may be able to grant injunctions or declaratory relief against provincial action in rights cases more readily than before.
- Solicitors and public-interest litigators — New procedural rules (notice to the Minister, deemed party status) and a fresh body of Alberta rights jurisprudence will create litigation opportunities and a demand for constitutional-style litigation under provincial law.
Who Bears the Cost
- Provincial government and taxpayers — Expanded property protections and the potential for more injunctions or compensation awards raise fiscal exposure for expropriations, regulatory takings claims and other provincial measures that limit property use.
- Public-health authorities and employers — The vaccine- and treatment-consent provisions constrain mandatory vaccination or treatment programs and complicate workforce health directives, potentially increasing litigation risk and reducing flexibility during public-health responses.
- Municipalities and regulatory bodies — Local land-use rules and licensing regimes face heightened legal scrutiny for potential 'taking' or deprivation of reasonable use, which may increase compliance, administrative burden and legal exposure.
- Courts and judicial administration — Courts will need to develop new provincial rights doctrine and manage added procedural steps (notice periods, Crown participation), likely increasing case complexity and resource needs.
- Policy-makers drafting legislation — The notwithstanding escape valve and the demonstrably justified limits test create drafting trade-offs: drafters must choose whether to include express notwithstanding language to immunize new statutes from challenges, which has political and legal consequences.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is whether to harden individual rights against government action (property takings, medical mandates, firearms rules) while preserving democratic flexibility: the bill strengthens provincial rights but simultaneously limits remedies (no damages for Acts), requires government notice and participation, and allows the Legislature to override the Bill — leaving courts, governments and litigants to negotiate how far rights protection should constrain policymaking and public budgets.
Bill 24 mixes stronger individual guarantees with procedural limits and an express legislative override, producing a set of practical ambiguities. The defined 'taking of property' may import regulatory‑takings litigation into Alberta courts: 'deprivation of all reasonable uses' is fact‑intensive and will require courts to draw lines between permissible regulation and compensable takings.
That invites more claims and potentially heavier compensation bills, but the transitional carve-outs and the damages prohibition for infringements caused by Acts may blunt some remedies and complicate litigation economics.
The medical and vaccine clauses create a clear individual-rights framework for bodily autonomy, but the public-safety exception for those 'likely to cause substantial harm' is vague and untested. Health authorities will face immediate uncertainty about when they can require treatment or vaccines for containment or workforce safety.
The bill also centralizes government defense in rights litigation via the Minister-of-Justice notice requirement and deemed-party status, which improves government coordination but could slow adjudication and raise procedural barrier issues for private challengers. Finally, the Legislature’s express notwithstanding power undercuts the practical force of the new rights: governments can opt out of them by statute, turning some disputes into political debates rather than purely legal ones.
There's more to this law than the bill.
Codify Laws traces every connection across the legislative lifecycle.