Alberta’s Public Lands Amendment Act, 2021 broadens the government’s authority to regulate activities on public land and allows fees tied to the use or occupation of that land. It also reorganizes several existing regulation-making powers and preserves the ability to restrict access to public-land recreation areas and trails through a different statutory reference.
The bill adds a new liability rule for recreational users. Anyone who accesses public land for recreation is deemed to have willingly assumed the risks associated with that recreational purpose, whether or not the owner or occupier gave permission, except where the risk results from the owner’s or occupier’s wilful or reckless conduct.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill authorizes regulations governing the use, occupation and activities on public land and permits fees relating to those uses. It also creates a statutory assumption-of-risk rule for people accessing public land for recreational purposes.
Who It Affects
The amendments affect recreational users, public-land managers, landowners and occupiers, and businesses or organizations operating activities on public land. They also affect the Lieutenant Governor in Council, the responsible minister and the director exercising regulatory and access-control powers.
Why It Matters
The bill shifts more of the public-land framework toward centralized regulation and potential cost recovery. Its liability provision may make recreational claims more difficult by treating users as having accepted ordinary risks even when access was unauthorized.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill changes the Public Lands Act in several connected ways. It gives the Lieutenant Governor in Council express authority to make rules about the use, occupation and activities on any public land, rather than limiting certain powers to vacant public land or land that is not subject to a disposition.
The amendments also allow regulations to prescribe fees related to using or occupying public land, including carrying on activities there.
The legislation removes overlapping regulation-making provisions. It repeals the power dealing specifically with activities on vacant disposition areas, removes the separate authority for regulating public land that is not the subject of a disposition, and replaces the narrower rule with a broader authority in section 9(a.1).
The result is a less segmented framework: the location or legal status of the land becomes less important to the basic power to regulate use and activity.The bill also removes several powers from the provisions governing public land use zones, recreation areas and recreation trails. It then updates the director’s order-making authority so that restrictions on entry, uses or activities in public-land recreation areas and trails are tied to the broader regulation-making authority under section 9(a.1).
The director can therefore continue to use orders to close or restrict areas, but the statutory foundation for that authority changes.Finally, new section 71.5 addresses civil liability. A person who accesses public land for recreation is deemed to have willingly assumed all risks related to that recreational purpose.
The rule applies whether the owner or occupier permitted the access. It does not protect an owner or occupier from risks created by wilful or reckless conduct, but it does not create a comparable exception for ordinary negligence.
The Five Things You Need to Know
Section 9.1(1)(a)(i.1) authorizes the minister to prescribe or provide for fees relating to the use or occupation of public land, including activities carried on there.
The bill replaces separate authorities focused on vacant public land and undisposed public land with a broader power to regulate the use, occupation and activities on any public land.
Section 71.5 applies to recreational access whether or not the owner or occupier granted permission; unauthorized recreational access is not excluded from the assumption-of-risk rule.
The liability protection is limited by an exception for risks created by the wilful or reckless conduct of the owner or occupier, rather than by ordinary negligence.
The bill changes the cross-reference governing director orders over public-land recreation areas and trails from section 71.1(1)(d) to section 9(a.1), following the repeal of the former recreation-area regulation power.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Updates the definition of disposition
The bill adds an instrument prescribed by regulation to the definition of “disposition” in the Public Lands Act. This gives the regulatory framework an additional way to recognize instruments affecting Crown land rights or privileges without requiring every instrument to fit the existing definition of a grant.
The practical effect depends on regulations made under the Act. It may allow the government to classify or administer public-land arrangements through prescribed instruments, but the bill itself does not specify which instruments will qualify.
Consolidates public-land regulation and fee authority
The bill repeals the power to regulate activities on public land that is a vacant disposition area and removes the separate authority concerning public land that is not the subject of a disposition. It replaces the latter with authority to permit, prohibit or regulate the use, occupation or activities on any public land.
The amendment also adds fees related to public-land use, occupation and activities to the minister’s order-making authority under section 9.1. The provision creates the legal mechanism for fees, but the amount, payer, collection rules and any exemptions would depend on subsequent orders or regulations.
Reworks recreation-area and trail controls
The bill repeals three regulation-making clauses under section 71.1(1), including provisions dealing with activities in public land use zones, use of public-land recreation areas and trails, and fees for those areas and trails. Section 71.2 is then updated to refer to section 9(a.1) instead of the repealed section 71.1(1)(d).
This is primarily a redistribution of statutory authority. The director’s power to prohibit or restrict entry, uses or activities in a public-land recreation area or trail remains, while the broader section 9(a.1) framework becomes the relevant source for regulating public-land use.
Creates an assumption of risk for recreational access
New section 71.5 provides that a person accessing public land for a recreational purpose is deemed to have willingly assumed all risks connected with that recreational purpose. The rule applies whether the person entered with or without the owner’s or occupier’s permission, so permission status does not determine whether the statutory assumption applies.
The exception covers risks created by wilful or reckless conduct of the owner or occupier. Because the text does not expressly preserve claims based on ordinary negligence, disputes may focus on how courts distinguish an assumed recreational risk from a risk created by conduct approaching recklessness.
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
- The Alberta government benefits from a broader and more flexible regulatory foundation for controlling public-land uses, occupations and activities across different land classifications.
- Public-land managers and enforcement officials gain a clearer route to restrict entry or activities in recreation areas and trails through director orders linked to section 9(a.1).
- Owners and occupiers of public land may receive stronger protection against civil claims arising from ordinary recreational risks, including claims involving people who entered without permission.
- Recreational users who value maintained or managed public-land facilities could benefit if future fees generate resources for land management, maintenance or public safety, although the bill does not itself establish a spending formula.
Who Bears the Cost
- People who use, occupy or conduct activities on public land may face new fees, with the amounts and coverage to be set through later regulatory or ministerial action.
- Commercial recreation operators and other organizations conducting activities on public land may face additional charges and compliance requirements tied to permits, land use or activity management.
- Landowners and occupiers still face potential exposure where their conduct is wilful or reckless, and they may need to assess how warnings, access controls and site conditions affect that risk.
- The minister, department and public-land administrators must develop and administer the new fee and regulatory framework, including decisions about classifications, enforcement and access restrictions.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The bill seeks to make public-land management more adaptable and potentially more self-financing, while giving users less certainty about future fees, restrictions and remedies. Broad delegated powers can help officials respond to different land uses, but they also move consequential decisions away from the Act itself; the liability rule similarly protects land managers from routine recreational claims while narrowing the room for users to recover for unsafe conditions that are serious but not wilful or reckless.
The bill creates authority more than detailed operating rules. It permits fees but does not set rates, identify who must pay, specify how costs must be calculated or establish a statutory formula requiring revenue to be spent on maintenance, management or safety.
The preamble describes those purposes, but the operative provisions leave the design of the fee system to later instruments. That creates flexibility, while making the eventual burden on users difficult to determine from the Act alone.
The liability rule also leaves important line-drawing questions. It applies to anyone accessing public land for a recreational purpose and covers access without permission, but it does not define the boundary between an assumed recreational risk and a hazard created by an owner or occupier.
The exception for wilful or reckless conduct is narrower than an ordinary-negligence standard, potentially reducing remedies for unsafe conditions that fall short of recklessness. At the same time, the rule does not eliminate all liability, so disputes may turn on the characterization of the risk and the owner’s conduct.
The consolidation of regulation-making powers may simplify administration, but it also concentrates practical choices in regulations, ministerial orders and director orders rather than spelling them out in the statute. Users and operators will need to track those instruments to know which activities are permitted, restricted or subject to payment in a particular area.
There's more to this law than the bill.
Codify Laws traces every connection across the legislative lifecycle.