Alberta’s Justice Statutes Amendment Act, 2020 makes coordinated changes across six justice statutes. It creates a statutory framework for police services established through agreements among Alberta, Canada and First Nations; permits more court and payment functions to occur electronically; and updates who administers referendums in municipalities, Métis settlements, Indian reserves and other local areas.
The bill also repeals the restitution-assistance and compensation-assistance regimes under the Victims Restitution and Compensation Payment Act and renames that statute the Civil Forfeiture Act. At the same time, it broadens the definition of an “illegal act,” authorizes the Minister to recover specified administration and police-training costs from money paid to the Crown, and narrows several regulatory and transition provisions.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill adds Part 3.1 to the Police Act for agreements establishing First Nation police services. It also authorizes videoconference and audioconference participation, electronic handling of routine provincial-court matters, online voluntary payments and certain ordinary-mail service under the Provincial Offences Procedure Act. It repeals Parts 2 and 3, Division 1, of the former Victims Restitution and Compensation Payment Act, replaces the statute’s title with the Civil Forfeiture Act, and changes the statutory definition of conduct that can trigger civil-forfeiture powers.
Who It Affects
First Nations, Canada and Alberta may become parties to agreements establishing police services for reserves or groups of reserves. Police commissions, chiefs, officers, sheriffs, courts, prosecutors, provincial-offence defendants, municipal and Métis settlement authorities, and lawyers seeking Queen’s Counsel designation also face changes. The civil-forfeiture amendments directly affect the Alberta Justice and Solicitor General ministry, property holders whose assets are connected to alleged illegal acts, claimants under remaining forfeiture processes and parties with competing interests in seized property.
Why It Matters
The bill moves several justice functions away from in-person or paper-based administration while giving First Nation police services an express place within Alberta’s policing statute. It also marks a significant policy shift by removing statutory restitution-assistance and compensation-assistance procedures rather than merely revising them. For compliance and litigation teams, the important details are the agreement-precedence rule for First Nation policing, the widened cross-border definition of an illegal act, the 30-day window for reopening certain provincial-offence convictions and the new authority to fund administration from Crown-held forfeiture proceeds.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The Police Act amendments create a formal route for Alberta, the federal government and one or more First Nations—or an entity representing several First Nations—to establish a police service for specified reserves. Each agreement must create a police commission, and the service’s jurisdiction is limited to the areas named in the agreement.
The Police Act otherwise applies to the service, its chief, officers and commission, but the agreement prevails if it conflicts with the Act. The amendments also make related changes to definitions, regulatory authority, employee provisions and chief-of-police responsibilities.
The Provincial Offences Procedure Act receives the bill’s most extensive administrative modernization. A justice may allow parties to participate, or preside over proceedings, by two-way video or audio.
Courts may resolve routine matters—such as pleas, adjournments and time-to-pay applications—by telephone, email or another electronic method. Defendants may make authorized voluntary payments online, and the Minister may designate certain offences for service by ordinary mail when motor-vehicle records contain a current licence or identity-card record.
The bill also replaces an affidavit-of-service requirement with a written certification deemed to be made under oath.The bill changes the treatment of missed provincial-offence proceedings. A defendant who has a reasonable excuse may apply in writing, within 30 days after learning of the conviction, to have the conviction set aside.
The application is deemed made under oath, the defendant must establish the excuse on a balance of probabilities, and the justice may require an appearance if necessary. This replaces the previous 15-day, affidavit-based procedure.The Referendum Act is recast to assign local referendum administration more precisely.
Municipal councils, Métis settlement councils, the Minister responsible for the Local Authorities Election Act and, under agreements, band councils and other local bodies may conduct votes. Existing local-election elector lists, voting subdivisions and voting stations generally carry over, while summer-village referendums are limited to residents.
The bill also establishes payment mechanisms for authorities and bodies that conduct referendum votes.The bill’s civil-forfeiture changes remove the former statutory processes for court-supervised restitution assistance and compensation assistance, including associated hearings, property-and-revenue statements, payment orders and offences for non-compliance. The remaining framework applies to illegal acts under Canadian, Alberta, other provincial or territorial, and certain foreign laws when the conduct would also have been an offence under Canadian or Alberta law.
Money paid to the Crown may be used to reimburse administration, property management and personnel costs, including police training and operations. These changes take effect on January 1, 2021, while the Jury Act and Police Act amendments require proclamation.
The Five Things You Need to Know
A First Nation police-service agreement must establish a police commission, and the agreement controls if it conflicts with the Police Act. The service may operate only in the areas identified in the agreement or a later amendment.
The court may handle routine provincial-offence matters by telephone, email or another electronic method. The listed routine matters include pleas, adjournments and time-to-pay applications, with the Court able to designate additional matters.
The bill allows ordinary-mail service for designated offences when the Registrar of Motor Vehicle Services has a record of a subsisting operator’s licence or identity card for the defendant. It also permits online voluntary payments when the summons or offence notice gives instructions for doing so.
A defendant seeking to reopen a provincial-offence conviction generally has 30 days from when the conviction first came to the defendant’s attention. The defendant must prove a reasonable excuse on a balance of probabilities through a written application deemed made under oath.
Effective January 1, 2021, the bill repeals the restitution-assistance and compensation-assistance parts of the former Act and authorizes reimbursement of specified civil-forfeiture administration costs from money paid to the Crown.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Electronic jury summonses
The Jury Act no longer limits the sheriff to the prescribed form when sending a summons. It expressly permits electronic delivery using information obtained under legal authority or with the person’s consent, alongside existing ordinary-mail and personal-delivery methods.
This is a narrow modernization measure, but it raises operational questions about authentication, reliable notice and proof of delivery. The amendment comes into force by proclamation rather than automatically.
First Nation police services under the Police Act
New Part 3.1 creates the statutory architecture for police services established through tripartite or representative agreements involving Alberta, Canada and First Nations. The agreement must establish a police commission and specify the service’s geographic jurisdiction. The Act applies with necessary modifications, but the agreement prevails over conflicting statutory provisions.
The related amendments integrate these services into the Police Act’s definitions, officer and employee provisions, chief-of-police duties, regulation-making powers and exemption authority. The structure gives agreements substantial practical importance: they are not merely funding documents, but instruments that can displace inconsistent statutory rules.
Electronic provincial-offence proceedings
The amendments give justices express authority to permit audio or two-way video participation and to preside remotely. Courts may also dispose of routine matters through electronic channels and send required notices through the same channel used for the application.
The provisions increase procedural flexibility without specifying a single technology platform. That leaves courts to address identity verification, record integrity, accessibility and situations in which remote participation could compromise fairness or effective communication.
Service, payment and conviction-reopening rules
The bill permits online payment of summonses and offence notices and expands ordinary-mail service to minister-designated offences tied to current motor-vehicle records. It replaces a third-party affidavit of service with a written certification deemed to be under oath, reducing a formal evidentiary step while preserving a sworn-status consequence for inaccurate certifications.
The revised conviction-set-aside process extends the application period from 15 to 30 days and permits a written application instead of requiring the applicant to appear before a justice. The justice retains discretion to require an appearance where the written record is insufficient.
Queen’s Counsel eligibility and revocation
The Queen’s Counsel Act permits appointment of lawyers with 10 years’ entitlement to practise in the superior courts of one or more Canadian provinces or territories. It also recognizes specified Commonwealth common-law jurisdictions, provided the lawyer has practised in Alberta’s superior courts for at least five of those years.
The revocation provision becomes automatic in legal effect: an appointment is deemed revoked when the member is disbarred or deemed disbarred through resignation in the face of discipline. The change removes the previous wording that directed the Lieutenant Governor in Council to revoke the appointment.
Local referendum administration
The bill replaces the Referendum Act’s administration provisions with a framework that identifies councils, band councils, Métis settlement councils, the Minister and other elected authorities that may conduct referendum votes. Existing local-election infrastructure generally supplies the elector lists, voting subdivisions and voting stations.
The framework also permits agreements among local authorities and the Minister, including arrangements involving Indian reserves, and provides for payments to bodies that conduct a vote. Summer villages receive a specific resident-only voting rule, while the Act separately addresses improvement districts, special areas and the Alberta portion of Lloydminster.
Civil Forfeiture Act and repeal of restitution assistance
The former Victims Restitution and Compensation Payment Act becomes the Civil Forfeiture Act. The bill repeals Part 2, section 31 and Division 1 of Part 3, eliminating the statutory restitution-assistance and compensation-assistance hearing systems and their related disclosure, payment, enforcement and appeal provisions.
The definition of “illegal act” expands beyond specified federal and Alberta enactments to include conduct contrary to enactments of another Canadian province or territory and conduct under foreign law when it would also have been an offence under Canadian or Alberta law. The Minister may reimburse the General Revenue Fund for administration, property handling and personnel expenses, including police training and operations, from money paid to the Crown. These amendments take effect January 1, 2021.
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
- First Nations and Indigenous communities seeking an independently structured police service benefit from an express statutory pathway that can define jurisdiction, governance and the relationship with Alberta and Canada.
- Provincial-offence defendants with straightforward matters may avoid unnecessary courthouse appearances through remote hearings, electronic applications and online payments. Defendants who discover a conviction late also receive a longer period to seek relief from 15 to 30 days.
- Courts, clerks and enforcement agencies gain more flexible tools for handling routine matters, serving selected offence notices and processing payments without relying exclusively on paper records or physical counters.
- Municipalities, Métis settlements, band councils and other local authorities receive clearer authority to administer referendum votes through agreements and to use existing local-election infrastructure.
- The Alberta Justice ministry may use Crown-held forfeiture proceeds to offset specified administrative, property-management and personnel costs, reducing the extent to which those functions rely on general revenue.
Who Bears the Cost
- Alberta, Canada and participating First Nations must negotiate, fund and administer police-service agreements, including police commissions and the governance arrangements required by the new statutory framework.
- First Nation police commissions, chiefs and officers must operate within both the Police Act and the terms of the establishing agreement, with the agreement taking precedence in a conflict. That can increase the importance and complexity of drafting and maintaining the agreement.
- Courts and justice-sector administrators must build safeguards for remote proceedings, electronic notices, online payments and deemed-sworn certifications, including systems for identity, accessibility, security and reliable records.
- Municipalities, Métis settlements, band councils and other bodies that conduct referendum votes may incur staffing, technology and administrative costs before receiving payments under the regulatory framework.
- Property holders and other parties affected by civil-forfeiture proceedings lose the former restitution-assistance and compensation-assistance mechanisms, while money paid to the Crown may be used to reimburse enforcement and administration costs.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The bill tries to make justice administration faster and more adaptable, but speed depends on mechanisms that can reduce procedural safeguards or consistency. Electronic proceedings and negotiated policing agreements require discretion and flexibility; the civil-forfeiture changes likewise expand administrative reach while removing detailed assistance procedures. The central question is how much uniformity, notice and judicial oversight should be traded for lower administrative friction and stronger operational capacity.
The First Nation policing provisions recognize negotiated Indigenous policing arrangements within Alberta’s general statutory system, but they also give the agreement priority over the Act. That can provide needed flexibility for distinct governance and service models, yet it creates a drafting and accountability risk: the practical rules may vary materially from one agreement to another, and conflicts may be resolved by contract rather than a uniform statutory standard.
Remote proceedings and electronic service improve access and reduce administrative friction, but convenience is not the same as reliable notice or meaningful participation. Ordinary-mail service based on motor-vehicle records can be efficient for designated offences while still creating exposure when records are stale, addresses are inaccurate or a defendant cannot reasonably access the notice.
The written certification deemed to be under oath similarly streamlines proof, but shifts greater importance to internal training and enforcement against inaccurate certifications.
The civil-forfeiture amendments present the largest structural trade-off. Repealing the restitution and compensation assistance regimes removes procedures designed to help determine how offenders pay and how property or proceeds are handled, while the expanded illegal-act definition and cost-recovery authority strengthen the remaining forfeiture framework.
The bill therefore reduces one set of court processes at the same time that it broadens the conduct potentially relevant to forfeiture and permits enforcement-related expenditures from Crown-held money.
There's more to this law than the bill.
Codify Laws traces every connection across the legislative lifecycle.