Bill 25 replaces the statutory term “Hearing Officer” with “adjudicator” throughout a set of New Brunswick Acts, regulations and Rules of Court, and adjusts related headings and forms. It also renames the Chief Hearing Officer role to "senior adjudicator" and the chief justice of the peace to "senior justice of the peace," and inserts or updates definitions to point to section 56.91 of the Judicature Act.
The bill is principally a terminological and cross‑referencing consolidation: it revises the Intimate Partner Violence Intervention Act, Small Claims Act, Support Enforcement Act, Judicature Act, Justices of the Peace Act, multiple regulations and Rules of Court, plus numerous court forms. It includes transitional provisions that deem existing holders to be the corresponding new officeholders, and one substantive-style adjustment to allow a senior adjudicator whose term ends to continue to act for the remainder of their adjudicator term.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill substitutes “adjudicator” for “Hearing Officer” across primary statutes, subordinate regulations, Rules of Court and court forms, inserts a uniform definition referencing the Judicature Act, and renames senior office titles. It also amends headings and French terminology where necessary.
Who It Affects
Court and tribunal staff, registries, family and small‑claims practitioners, justice partners (e.g., enforcement and social services that rely on statutory forms), and the current cohort of Hearing Officers and chief justice of the peace. Legal publishers and databases will need to update citations and form templates.
Why It Matters
Though not altering substantive powers or appeal routes, the bill creates a single, province‑wide label for quasi‑judicial officers and updates procedural texts and forms—reducing internal inconsistency but triggering operational updates, bilingual drafting checks, and potential interpretive questions where older language remains in other instruments.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
Bill 25 is a coordinated, province‑wide renaming project. Where statutes, regulations, the Rules of Court or prescribed forms previously referred to “Hearing Officer,” the bill replaces that phrase with “adjudicator” and adds a consistent definition tying the term to adjudicators appointed under section 56.91 of the Judicature Act.
The change appears in a dozen named statutes — including the Intimate Partner Violence Intervention Act, Small Claims Act and Support Enforcement Act — and in the Judicature Act itself, which provides the appointment authority and administrative framework for these officers.
Beyond word substitution, the bill replaces the heading “CHIEF HEARING OFFICER” with “SENIOR ADJUDICATOR” and similarly renames the chief justice of the peace to “senior justice of the peace.” It also revises a provision (56.97(5) as replaced) to permit a senior adjudicator whose term has ended and who was not redesignated to continue to act as an adjudicator for the remainder of their adjudicator term. The Rules of Court are amended where they define decision‑makers, family‑division processes, and several rule‑level references; the Appendix of Forms is updated to change form headings and signature blocks.The bill does not grant new adjudicative powers, alter substantive jurisdictional limits, or change statutory appeal standards.
Its practical effect is administrative and interpretive: courts, tribunals and government offices will need to update templates, online content, signage, training materials and bilingual wording (the French text also receives targeted amendments). Finally, transitional provisions deem persons who were Hearing Officers, the Chief Hearing Officer, and the chief justice of the peace immediately before commencement to be the new officeholders with corresponding titles, avoiding immediate vacancy or reappointment processes.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill inserts a uniform definition of “adjudicator” in multiple Acts that ties the title to appointments under section 56.91 of the Judicature Act.
It replaces the heading “CHIEF HEARING OFFICER” with “SENIOR ADJUDICATOR” and amends the statute to allow a senior adjudicator whose term ends to continue acting as an adjudicator for the balance of their adjudicator term.
Every affected statute, regulation, Rules of Court provision and court form that referred to “Hearing Officer” is amended to say “adjudicator,” including family division rules and Small Claims forms.
The bill updates French terminology where present (for example, replacing agent d’audience with adjudicateur in the Judicature Act’s French text).
Transitional clauses deem existing Hearing Officers, the Chief Hearing Officer, and the chief justice of the peace to be, respectively, adjudicators, the senior adjudicator, and the senior justice of the peace on commencement.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Replace 'Hearing Officer' with 'adjudicator' in IPV specialist statute
This part substitutes the term “adjudicator” for “Hearing Officer” throughout the Intimate Partner Violence Intervention Act and its supporting regulation. Practically, any references to who conducts hearings, reviews documentation, or signs decisions under that Act will use the new title; the change is limited to terminology and does not modify the Act’s procedural scheme or decision criteria.
Standardize appointments and senior title in the Judicature Act
The bill renames the HEARING OFFICERS heading to ADJUDICATORS and changes dozens of internal references in sections 56.91–56.97 and related provisions to use 'adjudicator' and 'senior adjudicator.' It also revises the senior‑office provision to allow a senior adjudicator who is not redesignated at the end of a term to continue acting as an adjudicator for the remainder of that adjudicator term—an operational detail that affects continuity of appointments.
Amend Rules of Court and Appendix of Forms to reflect new terminology
Rule amendments target definitions (decision‑maker), family division procedures and the appendix of prescribed forms. Headings, notice templates, signature lines and appeal‑notice wording are all updated. These are consequential for clerks and counsel: forms used to initiate appeals, notices of hearing, judgments and certificates must be reissued with new headers and language to avoid mismatches between filed documents and statutory wording.
Apply the title change across small‑claims, enforcement schemes and regulations
The Small Claims Act, Support Enforcement Act and their associated regulations receive parallel substitutions and form updates. Those changes affect everyday operational processes—service, hearing notices, certificates, warrants and satisfaction memoranda—so frontline registry procedures and electronic case‑management fields must be aligned with the new title.
Rename chief justice of the peace to senior justice of the peace
This narrower, title‑level amendment replaces the statutory phrase 'chief justice of the peace' with 'senior justice of the peace' across the Justices of the Peace Act. The change is stylistic and hierarchical, mirroring the senior adjudicator renaming, and is implemented to preserve continuity via the transitional deeming clause.
Deemed appointments to avoid vacancies on commencement
The bill includes transitional clauses that automatically deem persons holding office as Hearing Officers, the Chief Hearing Officer and the chief justice of the peace immediately before commencement to be adjudicators, the senior adjudicator and the senior justice of the peace, respectively. This avoids immediate reappointment or vacancy and carries through incumbents' existing terms under the new titles.
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
- Current Hearing Officers and senior officeholders — they retain office without reappointment and receive a standardized, province‑wide title that may clarify status across statutes.
- Court administration and registries — consistent terminology reduces internal discrepancies between Acts, rules and forms, making drafting and training simpler once updates are implemented.
- Litigants and practitioners — uniform language across statutes and forms should reduce confusion about who issues orders, signs certificates, and hears certain matters.
- Legal drafters and publishers — the bill provides a single reference term tied to the Judicature Act, which simplifies future drafting and statutory consolidation efforts.
Who Bears the Cost
- Provincial government and court administration — must update forms, e‑filing templates, websites, signage, training materials and internal policies, and absorb associated translation and publication costs.
- Registries and frontline staff — will face short‑term workload increases to replace templates, retrain staff and correct legacy documents that still use the old terminology.
- Legal publishers, CLJs and database vendors — must revise headnotes, indexing, and cross‑references to reflect the new titles across an array of statutes and rules.
- External agencies and service providers (social services, enforcement offices) — need to update statutory references in their procedures, letters and forms that cite Hearing Officer processes.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The bill balances the goal of legal clarity and consistency against the practical and interpretive fallout of renaming a network of quasi‑judicial roles: standardization smooths future drafting and reduces internal inconsistency, but it risks creating ambiguity where other instruments remain unchanged and may alter perceptions of these officers’ institutional role without changing their legal powers.
At face value the bill is terminological housekeeping; in practice, renaming a class of quasi‑judicial officers across statutes creates implementation and interpretive work. First, not every instrument in the legal ecosystem is amended by this bill—other provincial or federal statutes, municipal bylaws, contracts, policies and older court decisions will still say “Hearing Officer.” Those unamended cross‑references create short‑term ambiguity about whether older language requires judicial interpretation or administrative correction.
Second, the bill ties the definition of 'adjudicator' to appointments under section 56.91 of the Judicature Act; if that appointment mechanism differs in practice from how some statutes or regulations contemplated 'Hearing Officers,' edge cases could arise about selection, tenure or reporting lines.
A second tension concerns perceived role and independence. 'Adjudicator' is broader and used in many contexts; stakeholders may read the renaming as an attempt to align quasi‑judicial officers more closely with judicial‑style decision‑makers, raising questions about independence, discipline and appeal pathways even though the bill does not change substantive powers. Finally, the operational burden—rewriting forms, updating bilingual text, reissuing guidance—will fall unevenly on smaller registries and rural court offices that lack dedicated legislative drafting or IT support, and the bill provides no explicit implementation funding or schedule beyond deeming incumbents to new titles.
There's more to this law than the bill.
Codify Laws traces every connection across the legislative lifecycle.