Ban on NDAs That Silence Survivors

Summary#

• Bill 205 bans using non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) to silence people who experienced sexual misconduct or sexual exploitation in Alberta. It makes those gag clauses unenforceable, including ones signed in the past, and sets fines for anyone who tries to use them after the law takes effect on September 1, 2026.

• The bill also updates child protection law by broadening what “sexual exploitation” of a child means.

• Key changes:

  • A respondent (the person accused or the organization responsible for safety) cannot make a settlement that stops a survivor from sharing what happened.
  • NDA and non-disparagement clauses used to hide details about sexual misconduct or exploitation are void (not enforceable), even if signed before the law takes effect.
  • Employers and other responsible organizations cannot sign deals with an alleged perpetrator that block anyone from reporting or taking part in investigations under employment, health and safety, human rights, workers’ compensation, or other Alberta/Canada laws.
  • Fines apply after September 1, 2026: individuals $2,000–$10,000; organizations $10,000–$50,000. Corporate leaders who direct or allow a violation can be fined personally.
  • The Act cannot be waived in a contract. Government must review the law by 2031 and every five years after.

What it means for you#

• Survivors of sexual misconduct or exploitation

  • You cannot be forced to keep silent about what happened to you as part of a settlement.
  • If you signed an NDA before, the gag part is not enforceable once the law is in force. You cannot be penalized under that clause for speaking about your experience.
  • Other parts of a past settlement that do not silence you (for example, terms not related to your ability to speak about the misconduct) can still stand.

• Workers and students

  • You can report concerns and take part in investigations under employment, safety, human rights, or workers’ compensation laws. Your employer or institution cannot make an agreement that stops you or others from doing so.
  • “Sexual misconduct” includes unwanted sexual comments or jokes, sexual images, sexual touching, putting sexual conditions on jobs or promotions, and reprisals for rejecting advances.

• Employers, schools, and other organizations with a duty to prevent harassment

  • You cannot use NDAs or non-disparagement clauses to stop someone from sharing details about sexual misconduct or exploitation.
  • You also cannot make agreements with an alleged perpetrator that would restrict anyone from reporting or helping with an investigation under the listed laws.
  • Violations after September 1, 2026 can lead to fines. Officers and managers who direct or allow a violation can be fined personally.
  • Review and update your settlement templates, policies, and training before the law takes effect.

• People accused of misconduct

  • You cannot ask for or rely on gag clauses to stop a survivor from speaking about the alleged conduct.
  • Old NDAs that tried to silence survivors will not protect you once the law is in force.

• Parents and caregivers

  • The child-protection law now treats a broader range of conduct as “sexual exploitation.” A child is considered in need of protection if subject to sexual exploitation, not only in cases tied to prostitution.

Expenses#

Estimated government cost: No publicly available information.

• The Act creates offences and fines but does not set up new programs or funding in the bill text.
• Organizations may face compliance costs to update policies and agreements.

Proponents' View#

• Stops the silencing of survivors and helps them speak openly about harm.
• Helps prevent repeat harm by allowing people to learn about patterns of misconduct.
• Protects the right to report and cooperate with investigations under workplace and public safety laws.
• Retroactive voiding frees people from old gag clauses that kept abuse hidden.
• Clear fines and personal liability for corporate leaders create accountability and deter misuse of NDAs.

Opponents' View#

• Removes the option for survivors who may want confidentiality as part of a settlement, which some say could reduce their bargaining power.
• Could lead to fewer settlements and more lawsuits, adding time and stress for all sides.
• May expose organizations and individuals to reputational harm from allegations that are not proven in court.
• Retroactively voiding parts of past agreements may undermine certainty for parties who relied on those contracts.
• Some terms may be unclear in practice (for example, where to draw the line between allowed confidentiality, like payment amounts, and banned gagging about the misconduct), which could create legal uncertainty.