Summary#
Bill 33, the Justice Statutes Amendment Act, 2026 (No. 2), amends several existing Alberta laws; it does not create one new justice agency or program. Its stated goal: No publicly available information beyond the title and the amendments in the bill. The bill is at first reading and is not law; most changes would start only when proclaimed, while the court-jurisdiction change is set for January 1, 2027.
- Public bodies and hiring: The Alberta Human Rights Act would bar provincial bodies from planning, advertising, adopting or implementing ameliorative measures (programs or policies intended to improve opportunities) for hiring or promotion, unless an exemption applies. It would also restrict required employee training.
- Intimate content: The Protecting Victims of Non-consensual Distribution of Intimate Images Act would become the Intimate Content Protection Act. It would cover altered and unaltered intimate content, create civil claims and a criminal offence for non-consensual distribution or threats, and authorize court orders to remove content.
- Schools: The Education Act would include distributing or threatening to distribute intimate content without consent in its definition of bullying, and allow suspension or a recommendation for expulsion on that basis.
- Courts and legal profession: The Court of King’s Bench Act would broaden applications judges’ jurisdiction. Changes to the Legal Profession Act would set a 30-day appeal process for certain Legal Profession Act decisions, change the threshold for calling a Law Society special meeting, remove a member vote process, and reduce ministerial control over the Foundation under that Act.
- Other changes: The King’s Counsel Act would change eligibility rules and add former office-holders to an exception. The Public Sector Compensation Transparency Act would require successor public bodies to report certain pay and benefits across reorganizations.
What it means for you#
- Public bodies and their employees: The hiring and promotion ban applies to a wide range of provincial and local public bodies, including government employers, public agencies, funded service providers, health bodies, post-secondary institutions, school boards, municipalities and police services. Regulations may add or exclude entities. Required training could not dictate acceptable opinions on specified issues, address cultural competency, unconscious bias, or diversity, equity and inclusion, or promote listed principles. Training addressing an issue is still allowed if reasonably necessary for an employee to do their job competently. Exemptions may be set by regulation.
- Students and school staff: A student’s distribution or threatened distribution of intimate content without consent could count as bullying and be grounds for suspension or an expulsion recommendation. The bill does not require a school to impose either consequence.
- People depicted in intimate content: A person could sue over non-consensual distribution or a threat to distribute, including altered content such as a manipulated image. A person who later revokes consent to distribution may require the distributor to make every reasonable effort to make the content unavailable, subject to an exception for certain commercial or artistic contracts. Courts could order removal, deletion or de-indexing (removal from search results). The bill also creates an offence punishable by a fine of up to $10,000, up to two years in prison, or both.
- Parents and online intermediaries: A parent would not generally be liable for a child defendant’s damages unless the parent directly participated. An internet intermediary would not be liable under specified provisions if it took reasonable steps to address unlawful distribution.
- Lawyers and public-sector workers: The bill changes Law Society member meeting and voting rules, King’s Counsel eligibility, and how pay information is reported after a public-body reorganization. It does not directly change ordinary private-sector pay disclosure rules.
Money#
No publicly available information on the bill’s overall public cost or savings.
- The bill requires no stated appropriation and gives no estimate for staff, administration, court, school or public-body costs.
- Courts may order community service instead of some or all punitive damages. Criminal fines can be up to $10,000; the bill does not estimate fine revenue.
What is unclear#
- The bill does not specify when the changes requiring proclamation would start. It also does not include the regulations that could set exemptions, add or exclude public bodies, or define terms.
- The boundaries of terms such as “nearly nude,” “altered intimate content” and “reasonable steps” are not fully set out in the bill.
- The bill does not provide detailed procedures for exemption decisions or explain how the new hiring and training rules will be monitored.
- It is unclear how the expanded applications-judge jurisdiction will work in practice. The bill retains constitutional limits and the Chief Justice’s power to direct otherwise, but replaces the former section’s detailed exclusions.
- The bill does not estimate how many public bodies, school cases, appeals or compensation disclosures would be affected.
Case for#
- A possible argument for the public-body rules is that they set limits on government-required training and on preferential hiring or promotion, while allowing exemptions and job-related training.
- Expanding intimate-content protections to altered material and threats could give people legal options when content is manipulated or used as a threat.
- Removal and de-indexing orders could address the continued availability of content, not only award damages after harm occurs.
- Combining pay information across reorganized public bodies could make disclosure more complete when employees or members move between bodies.
Case against#
- The hiring and training restrictions could limit public bodies’ ability to use programs or training they consider useful; the bill does not explain how exemptions will be assessed.
- The intimate-content provisions create serious consequences, including criminal penalties, while key terms and the practical reach of “reasonable efforts” are not fully clear in the bill.
- Broader jurisdiction for applications judges could change which judge hears some matters. The bill does not explain how the expanded role will be managed.
- Removing ministerial approval and directive powers over the Foundation gives its board more control over bylaws and spending, including commitments above the former $250,000 approval threshold. The bill does not provide a replacement oversight process in these amendments.