Again, Why? the Big Picture of the Alberta Regulated Professions Neutrality Act

In my previous column on the Alberta Regulated Professions Neutrality Act,[1] I focused on subtle details of the Act and the important implications of those details for how the Act worked and what it did.[2] In this column, I focus instead on the major flaw of the Act, which flaw is glaringly obvious but seems to have received relatively little attention and prompted relatively little pushback outside the legislative assembly.[3] Nothing in this column is revolutionary or imaginative or even particularly original. But it is worth emphasizing nonetheless. While the Act has implications for many regulated professions, I focus here on its implication for the legal profession.

Section 5 of the Regulated Professions Neutrality Act prohibits professional regulators from imposing discipline (“a sanction”) on a member “for expressive conduct of the regulated professional that occurs outside the practice of the regulated profession”.[4] (Curiously, the section also defines “sanction” as not including an administrative monetary penalty.[5]) This prohibition is narrowed in three ways. First, the section defines “expressive conduct” as “an activity or communication that conveys or attempts to convey meaning, but does not include physical violence or property damage”.[6] The second way is by a list of exceptions. These exceptions include “a threat of physical violence” and conduct for which the member “has been convicted of an offence”.[7] They also include “professional boundaries” misconduct, “expressive conduct of a sexual nature” with “a client, patient or student” or their relative, or grooming – as well as “misuse of the regulated professional’s position in their regulated profession with the intention of causing physical, psychological or financial harm to an identifiable person”.[8] However, discipline that is permitted through these exceptions must also be explicitly authorized in an Act or regulation.[9] The third way is an explicit exclusion, i.e. that this section does not prohibit discipline “for the disclosure of client, patient or student information”.[10]

While this prohibition is a legally permissible narrowing of the statutory jurisdiction granted by the legislature to provincial self-regulated professions,[11] it is deeply flawed in at least two ways. The first flaw is that this prohibition assumes that there is a meaningful distinction between professional conduct and extra-professional conduct (or what the legislation terms “conduct that occurs outside the practice of the regulated profession”.[12]) During the legislative debates, Justice Minister Mickey Amery also used the phrases “on their own time”,[13] “outside of their work”,[14] and “off duty”.[15] MLA Justin Wright likewise used the phrase “outside of the workplace”.[16] It is not obvious that a professional is ever off duty, especially in the age of social media and near-constant electronic availability.[17]

The second flaw is that, even if such a distinction can be made between professional conduct and extra-professional conduct, this prohibition assumes that extra-professional conduct is not legitimately regulable.

At Committee of the Whole, MLA Diana Batten gave the example of a family doctor who – outside of their clinic and outside of clinic hours – “shares a debunked medical claim online”.[18] Consider likewise a lawyer who, over the weekends when at home, runs a side business promoting freeman-on-the-land pseudo-legal hokum.[19] (Or, for that matter, a personal injury lawyer who promotes debunked alternative health remedies for automobile-collision injuries.) Assume the family doctor and the lawyer do not repeat or even mention these claims to any patients or clients during work hours. This would appear to be, in the language of the Act, “expressive conduct of the regulated professional that occurs outside the practice of the regulated profession”.[20] This conduct poses a potential serious harm posed to the public, given the credibility of these individuals as a family doctor and as a lawyer, and it is not clear that this distinction excuse the potential damage that these individuals do to public trust in the profession generally.[21] As noted by MLA Court Ellingson, “there is a very real chance that comments made by professionals have the ability to cause real harm to the public.”[22]

In the context of lawyers, consider the duty to encourage respect for the administration of justice.[23] Indeed, the commentary to this rule explicitly states that “[t]he obligation outlined in the rule is not restricted to the lawyer’s professional activities but is a general responsibility resulting from the lawyer’s position in the community. A lawyer’s responsibilities are greater than those of a private citizen.”[24] Aside from the pseudo-legal hokum, imagine the lawyer also posts comments across the internet asserting, without providing any evidence, a vast network of organized crime offences, including bribery and drug trafficking, by dozens of named lawyers and judges. This “expressive conduct” would clearly damage public trust in the legal profession and in the administration of justice. Addressing such conduct – including denunciation and deterrence – through professional discipline goes squarely to the mandate of the Law Society to protect the public interest.[25] But the Act very clearly precludes this discipline.

Note also that while the prohibition in the Act allows discipline for violence or threats of violence, as well as for “expressive conduct with respect to which the regulated professional has been convicted of an offence”, it does not allow discipline for conduct that breaches human rights law without constituting an offence.[26] Indeed, during the legislative debates, Justice Minister Amery appeared to suggest that such matters are for, and only for, the consideration of the provincial human rights apparatus: “The Alberta Human Rights Act, in fact, already exists to protect against these very acts of hatred.”[27] Discrimination that is contrary to the Human Rights Act does not constitute an offence.[28] Thus, despite Minister Amery’s assertion that “[n]othing in Bill 13 shields criminal behaviour, threats, harassment, or discrimination whatsoever”,[29] the Act does indeed shield discrimination from professional discipline (though it does not shield it from consequences under the Alberta Human Rights Act). Even if a lawyer is found to have committed discrimination under human rights law, the Law Society could not discipline them for that breach. Defamation is likewise not an offence. Moreover, the prohibition in the Act would not allow for professional discipline for offences – such as criminal hate speech – unless and until the member has been convicted. Hate speech is rarely prosecuted.[30]

The consensus in the Canadian legal ethics community appears to be that extra-professional conduct by lawyers should not be a disciplinary priority, particularly conduct of non-practicing lawyers.[31] To prohibit such discipline categorically is quite different from de-emphasizing it as a priority.[32]

To the extent that the Act was aimed at solving an existing or anticipated problem, it is either incredibly overbroad in the restrictions it places on professional regulators or remarkably poorly drafted – or both.[33] In other words, it is either an inherently bad policy decision or a questionable policy decision implemented haphazardly. As I have written elsewhere, the Act “fundamentally misunderstands the concept of professional responsibility, the role of professional regulators, and the maintenance of public confidence in the regulated professions”.[34] Even if there was a nugget of appropriate and meaningful law reform in this Act, it was completely lost or drowned out along the way.

Thus, while surprising no one, I again ask the question: Why?

__________________

[1] Regulated Professions Neutrality Act, SA 2025, c R-13.3 [RPNA], proclaimed to come into force (with minor exceptions) on September 1, 2026: <https://www.alberta.ca/proclamations>; OIC 164/2026 (4 June 2026).

[2] Andrew Flavelle Martin, “Why? The Details of the Alberta Regulated Professions Neutrality Act” (10 June 2026), Slaw (blog), online: <https://www.slaw.ca/2026/06/10/why-the-details-of-the-alberta-regulated-professions-neutrality-act/>.

[3] But see e.g. Malinda S Smith, Bukola Salami & Kannin Osei-Tutu, “Alberta’s ‘neutrality’ law redraws professional accountability” The Globe and Mail (2 January 2026), online: <https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-albertas-neutrality-law-redraws-professional-accountability/>; Bukola Salami et al, “Bill 13 is Alberta’s law—but all Canadians must pay attention” The Hill Times (6 January 2026), online: <https://www.hilltimes.com/2026/01/06/bill-13-is-albertas-law-but-all-canadians-must-pay-attention/486670/>.

[4] RPNA, supra note 1, s 5(2).

[5] Ibid, s 5(1)(c).

[6] Ibid, s 5(1)(b).

[7] Ibid, s 5(2)(b).

[8] Ibid, s 5(2)(b).

[9] Ibid, s 5(2)(a): “an authorizing enactment expressly authorizes the regulatory appeal body or regulatory body to do so.” See s 5(1)(a) for a definition of “authorizing enactment”: “ ‘authorizing enactment’ means an Act or regulation that authorizes a regulatory appeal body or regulatory body, as the case may be, to impose sanctions on a regulated professional for expressive conduct that occurs outside of the practice of the regulated profession, but does not include a regulation made by a regulatory appeal body or regulatory body other than a Minister”. See also

[10] Ibid, s 5(3).

[11] There could be a reasonable legal argument that, in its application to the legal profession, this restriction of the powers of a law society offends the independence of the bar. See e.g. Law Society of British Columbia v British Columbia (Attorney General), 2026 BCSC 779 [currently under appeal].

[12] RPNA, supra note 1, s 5(2).

[13] “Bill 13: Regulated Professions Neutrality Act”, 1st reading, Alberta Hansard, 31-2, Day 13 (20 November 2025) at 404 (Hon Mickey Amery)

[14] “Bill 13: Regulated Professions Neutrality Act”, 2nd reading, Alberta Hansard, 31-2, Day 16 (26 November 2025) at 564, 565 (Hon Mickey Amery).

[15] Ibid.

[16] “Bill 13: Regulated Professions Neutrality Act”, 2nd reading, Alberta Hansard, 31-2, Day 16 (26 November 2025) at 572 (Justin Wright).

[17] See e.g. “Bill 13: Regulated Professions Neutrality Act”, 2nd reading, Alberta Hansard, 31-2, Day 16 (26 November 2025) at 569: (Janet Eremenko): “The point is: who decides when you’re off duty? As elected officials we are never off duty. I reckon that there is an awful lot of precedent that tells us that when you are a public figure and you are in the public realm, on social media for example, you are not off duty. So who decides? Genuinely, I’d love to hear from the minister who introduced this legislation: who decides what off duty is? If you’re on call and you’re having dinner at a restaurant, are you off duty or are you on duty? If you are on your way to work and having a phone call, are you on duty or off duty? When does it actually start and stop?”

[18] “Bill 13: Regulated Professions Neutrality Act”, Committee of the Whole, Alberta Hansard, 31-2, Day 16 (26 November 2025) at 802 (Diana Batten).

[19] See e.g. Donald J. Netolitzky, “Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Arguments as Magic and Ceremony” (2018) 55:4 Alta L Rev 1045.

[20] RPNA, supra note 1, s 5(2).

[21] “Bill 13: Regulated Professions Neutrality Act”, Committee of the Whole, Alberta Hansard, 31-2, Day 19 (2 December 2025) at 692 (Rhianna Hoyle): “Bill 13 creates a significant change in regulators who previously were free to impose discipline for off-duty conduct as they see fit when it impacts the interests of the public or harms the reputations of the profession.”

[22] “Bill 13: Regulated Professions Neutrality Act”, 2nd reading, Alberta Hansard, 31-2, Day 16 (26 November 2025) at 567 (Court Ellingson).

[23] See e.g. Law Society of Alberta, Code of Conduct (2025), r 5.6-1 [Code of Conduct] online: <https://documents.lawsociety.ab.ca/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/14211909/Code.pdf> perma.cc/3VGR-MJCW: “A lawyer must encourage public respect for and try to improve the administration of justice.” See e.g. Andrew Flavelle Martin, “The Lawyer’s Duty to Encourage Respect for the Administration of Justice: A Real Duty” (1 October 2025), Slaw (blog), online: <https://www.slaw.ca/2025/10/01/the-lawyers-duty-to-encourage-respect-for-the-administration-of-justice-a-real-duty/>.

[24] Code of Conduct, supra note 23, r 5.6-1, commentary 1. See also “Bill 13: Regulated Professions Neutrality Act”, 2nd reading, Alberta Hansard, 31-2, Day 16 (26 November 2025) at 569 (Janet Eremenko): “Being a regulated professional is a privilege, Mr. Speaker, that affords special opportunity but also comes with great responsibility. Certainly, if anybody is doing anything criminal on shift or off, well, there are repercussions for that, but the opinions of a person with a professional designation carry more weight, which is why unexpected claims from doctors or nurses will be further amplified online.”

[25] See Legal Profession Act, s 2.1(a): “The purpose of the Society is to uphold and protect the public interest in the administration of justice by … ensuring the independence, integrity, competence and ethical conduct of lawyers”. (Proclaimed to come into force on September 1, 2026: <https://www.alberta.ca/proclamations>; OIC 163/2026 (4 June 2026).) See also Song v The Law Society of Alberta, 2025 ABKB 525 at para 89: “the principle that a self-regulating profession must regulate in the public interest applies regardless of whether there is an express public interest clause in the enabling act.”

[26] “Bill 13: Regulated Professions Neutrality Act”, 2nd reading, Alberta Hansard, 31-2, Day 16 (26 November 2025) at 567-568 (Court Ellingson): “This bill limits sanctions of regulatory bodies to acts of physical violence, property damage, and expressive conduct of a sexual nature to a client, patient, or student. There are no comments here of hate speech, degrading speech, harmful speech towards people in our society.”

[27] “Bill 13: Regulated Professions Neutrality Act”, Committee of the Whole, Alberta Hansard, 31-2, Day 19 (2 December 2025) at 689 (Hon Mickey Amery); Alberta Human Rights Act, RSA 2000, c A-25.5.

[28] Note that while the Alberta Human Rights Act, supra note 27 does contain an offence provision, that offence is only for interference with the functions of the Commission: s 42(1).

[29] Bill 13: Regulated Professions Neutrality Act”, Committee of the Whole, Alberta Hansard, 31-2, Day 19 (2 December 2025) at 689 (Hon Mickey Amery).

[30] See e.g. Kenneth Grad, “Beyond Public Law: Recognizing a Tort Remedy for Hate Speech in Canada” (2026) 34:4 Constitutional Forum 43 at 49 [citations omitted]: “Since their initial enactment, the hate-speech provisions have been used infrequently compared with other Criminal Code offences, and the conviction rate for these crimes is significantly lower than the average for all criminal offences in Canada. Commentators have accordingly complained that hate crimes are rarely charged and seldom result in prosecution.”

[31] See e.g. Andrew Flavelle Martin, “The Limits of Professional Regulation in Canada: Law Societies and Non-Practising Lawyers” (2016) 19:1 Legal Ethics 169

[32] See “Bill 13: Regulated Professions Neutrality Act”, 2nd reading, Alberta Hansard, 31-2, Day 18 (1 December 2025) at 629 (Sarah Elmeligi): “[P]rofessional regulatory bodies are the ones who are best suited to determine what is or is not appropriate behaviour for their members.”

[33] I mean no disrespect whatsoever to the legislative drafters involved. I am confident that they effectively implemented the drafting instructions that they were given.

[34] Martin, supra note 2.