Bill 9 amends three Alberta statutes—the Education Act, the Fairness and Safety in Sport Act, and the Health Professions Act—by adding new provisions that state specified provisions of those Acts “shall operate notwithstanding” sections 2 and 7–15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the Alberta Bill of Rights and the Alberta Human Rights Act. The amendments also declare that certain regulations and a named ministerial order are “deemed to be a provision” of the parent statute, bringing those subordinate instruments inside the same override.
The changes functionally insulate particular policy measures in education, sport governance and regulated health professions from Charter and provincial human-rights challenges, and they explicitly extend that insulation to instruments such as the Fairness and Safety in Sport Regulation (AR 124/2025) and Ministerial Order No. 31/2025. For stakeholders—school boards, sport bodies, professional regulators and affected individuals—the bill alters the legal landscape for reviewing those measures and reallocates the likely forum and intensity of future legal disputes.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill inserts three new statutory declarations that specified provisions will operate notwithstanding protections in the Canadian Charter (sections 2 and 7–15), the Alberta Bill of Rights and the Alberta Human Rights Act, and it treats certain regulations and a ministerial order as part of the parent Acts for those purposes.
Who It Affects
Directly affected actors include school authorities and education regulators tied to the listed Education Act provisions, sport organizations subject to AR 124/2025, and health professionals and regulators covered by the Health Professions Act provisions and Ministerial Order No. 31/2025.
Why It Matters
By invoking a statutory 'notwithstanding' shield and folding regulations/orders into the Acts, the government narrows judicial avenues to challenge these policies on Charter and provincial human-rights grounds and raises the legal hurdle for successful rights-based litigation.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
Bill 9 creates express statutory shields in three domains the government describes as protecting children: education, sport safety, and regulated health services. Instead of leaving subordinate regulations or administrative orders exposed to Charter or provincial rights claims, the text says specific provisions of each named Act — and the regulations or orders associated with them — 'shall operate notwithstanding' enumerated Charter rights and provincial human-rights instruments.
That formulation mirrors the language used to invoke section 33 of the Charter (the 'notwithstanding clause') and extends the same effect to provincial statutes and specific delegated instruments.
In the Education Act, the bill adds a new section that names particular sections of the Act (including provisions already dealing with program requirements and safety-related rules) and declares they operate notwithstanding the listed constitutional and provincial rights statutes. In the Fairness and Safety in Sport Act the bill not only inserts the notwithstanding declaration but also expressly deems the Fairness and Safety in Sport Regulation (AR 124/2025) to be a provision of the Act, and confirms the notwithstanding declaration applies to that regulation.
The Health Professions Act amendment does the same for named sections and explicitly folds a regulation and Ministerial Order No. 31/2025 into the protective reach of the Act.The practical legal effect is that when those named statutory provisions, regulations, or orders are challenged on the grounds that they infringe Charter protections (freedoms and legal/equality rights) or breach the Alberta Bill of Rights or Human Rights Act, the declarations will be a primary statutory basis for resisting such challenges. It does not make those measures immune from all judicial review—questions about statutory interpretation, procedural fairness, or issues outside the scope of the enumerated rights may still be litigated—but it raises a substantial threshold for successful rights-based claims.
For regulated entities and lawyers, the bill signals a deliberate strategy to prioritize certain policy objectives over specific individual rights protections in these subject areas.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The Education Act amendment adds section 58.13 declaring sections 18(1)(d.1) and (d.2), 18.1, 33.2, 58.11 and 58.12 will 'operate notwithstanding' sections 2 and 7–15 of the Charter, the Alberta Bill of Rights and the Alberta Human Rights Act.
The Fairness and Safety in Sport Act gains section 7.1, which both invokes the same notwithstanding protection and explicitly deems the Fairness and Safety in Sport Regulation (AR 124/2025) to be a provision of the Act.
The Health Professions Act gains section 1.95, applying the notwithstanding protection to sections 1.91–1.93 and treating a regulation under section 1.92(2) and Ministerial Order No. 31/2025 as provisions of the Act.
The bill’s 'deemed to be a provision' language is the mechanism that brings delegated instruments (a regulation and a ministerial order named in the text) inside the scope of the notwithstanding declarations.
The drafting mirrors the scope of the Charter’s s.33 override (sections 2 and 7–15), meaning the province is expressly relying on the legislated notwithstanding approach to limit certain Charter-based and provincial human-rights challenges.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Specify Education provisions operate notwithstanding Charter and provincial rights
This provision lists specific Education Act subsections (18(1)(d.1) and (d.2), 18.1, 33.2, 58.11 and 58.12) and declares they operate notwithstanding sections 2 and 7–15 of the Canadian Charter, the Alberta Bill of Rights and the Alberta Human Rights Act. Mechanically, that places those Education Act provisions on statutory footing designed to fend off claims that they infringe the enumerated Charter freedoms, legal or equality rights or contravene provincial rights statutes. Practically, school authorities and regulators implementing those listed duties or restrictions will be defending policy choices against a background where rights-based judicial remedies face an immediate statutory counterargument.
Extends notwithstanding protection to sport law and its regulations
Section 7.1 has three elements: it invokes the notwithstanding protection for the Act, it declares that regulations made under the Act (explicitly naming AR 124/2025 in the explanatory material) are deemed provisions of the Act, and it clarifies that the notwithstanding declaration applies to those regulations. The effect is to wrap both the statutory framework and the delegated regulation for sport eligibility and safety rules with the same legal shield, reducing the potential for successful Charter or provincial human-rights challenges to regulatory settings for competitive categories, safety standards or participation rules.
Shields specified health-professions measures and a ministerial order
The Health Professions Act amendment makes subsections 1.91–1.93 operate notwithstanding the listed Charter and provincial rights instruments, deems regulations made under section 1.92(2) to be provisions of the Act, and expressly includes orders made under section 1.93—calling out Ministerial Order No. 31/2025—as subject to that treatment. For professional regulators, disciplinary processes, scope-of-practice rules or public-health orders captured in those sections, the clause reduces the viability of Charter- or human-rights-based challenges to such measures.
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
- Provincial government and ministries: The legislation gives the government a clearer statutory tool to defend selected child-protection, sport and health-policy instruments against Charter and provincial human-rights challenges, lowering litigation risk for those measures.
- Regulatory bodies (education authorities, provincial sport regulators, health profession regulators): By folding regulations and specified orders into the Acts, regulators obtain a firmer statutory basis to implement and enforce contested rules without immediate successful Charter or human-rights reversals.
- Organizations enforcing participation or eligibility rules (school boards, sport organizations, health employers): Entities that adopt or enforce the named provisions face a reduced chance that courts will strike down their policies on the enumerated rights grounds addressed by the bill.
Who Bears the Cost
- Individuals subject to the listed rules (students, athletes, regulated patients or clients): Those who would otherwise challenge measures as infringing Charter freedoms or equality rights will face a higher statutory barrier and potentially fewer remedies under provincial human-rights schemes.
- Human-rights claimants and advocates: The declarations constrain one avenue of challenge (Charter and provincial human-rights arguments) and may shift disputes toward administrative or other legal remedies that are often slower or less compensatory.
- Courts and tribunals: Expect a rise in complex threshold litigation over the proper scope and applicability of the notwithstanding declarations, including disputes about whether particular measures truly fall within the listed provisions or whether other legal standards still apply.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is between the government’s objective to implement and protect specific child-safety, sport and health measures and the constitutional and statutory rights of individuals: the bill pushes policy objectives ahead of certain Charter and provincial human-rights protections, but doing so raises interpretive, procedural and legitimacy questions about whether insulating statutes and delegated instruments this way undercuts core rights safeguards and shifts disputes into narrower or more complex legal channels.
The bill uses familiar statutory language to invoke the scope of the Charter’s s.33 override (sections 2 and 7–15), but embedding identical language into provincial statutes and explicitly folding regulations and a ministerial order into the Acts raises difficult interpretive questions. Courts will need to decide whether the 'deemed to be a provision' mechanic effectively immunizes delegated instruments from Charter scrutiny in all circumstances, or whether constitutional review can still examine whether a government exceeded its statutory authority, acted unreasonably, or breached procedural fairness.
The bill reduces the availability of a direct Charter or provincial human-rights challenge, yet it does not eliminate judicial review on other legal grounds.
There are also practical risks: treating specific regulations and a ministerial order as provisions of an Act concentrates legal protection on named instruments, which may prompt more targeted litigation over the instruments’ scope and legislative authorization. The text names AR 124/2025 and Ministerial Order No. 31/2025; that specificity can shield those measures but could invite constitutional attacks that focus on whether the legislature validly delegated authority or whether the instruments exceed delegated powers.
Finally, by prioritizing certain policy objectives over particular Charter and human-rights protections, the bill forces administrative bodies and courts into recurring line-drawing exercises about what the legislature intended and whether remaining review tools suffice to protect individual rights in practice.
There's more to this law than the bill.
Codify Laws traces every connection across the legislative lifecycle.