On Monday, October 27, 2025, at about 5:30 p.m., the UCP government introduced Bill 2, the Back to School Act, in the Alberta legislature. As a criminal defence lawyer, I spend my days defending the constitutional rights of Albertans in court, rights this legislation deliberately set aside. As everyone reading this will know, the legislation forced teachers to end their lawful strike and head back to the classroom under threat of penalties to individual teachers and the ATA. The UCP, a party that prides itself on standing for individual liberties, passed this law fully aware that it violated teachers’ constitutional labour rights. But, rather than justify their position in the courts, they invoked the notwithstanding clause.
In about the span of a ... baseball game, teachers had their constitutional labour rights stripped away from them.
You may recall that, at about the same time the UCP began introducing the bill, the Toronto Blue Jays and L.A. Dodgers began playing game three of the World Series. That game went on for a near-record six-and-a-half hours and ended just after midnight. Shortly after that game ended, at about 1:30 a.m., the UCP rammed through the third and final reading of Bill 2.
In about the span of an (admittedly lengthy) baseball game, teachers had their constitutional labour rights stripped away from them.
As the son of a teacher and the husband of a teacher, I am particularly sensitive to policies that unfairly target or impact teachers. I have seen the long hours teachers put in, not only during the school day but also in the evenings and on weekends, marking exams, coaching sports and helping students who need extra help. I have seen how seriously teachers take their role of educating the next generation of Albertans.
Teachers are more than just educators; they are mentors and role models to the next generation.
The UCP did not stop with teachers and Bill 2. Less than two months later, in another late-night marathon session, they rammed through legislation that invoked the notwithstanding clause to shield three pieces of legislation from constitutional challenge. This time, the laws in question prohibited children from using the names and pronouns of their choice, banned transgender girls from participating in amateur female sports and banned certain transgender health care for youth under 16. Once again, the government chose to pre-emptively insulate itself from legal scrutiny rather than defend these measures on their merits in court.
As many readers will know, the notwithstanding clause (section 33 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms) was included in the charter as a compromise between the provinces and the federal government to ensure that provincial legislatures had the final word when creating provincial law. Alberta’s then-Premier Peter Lougheed was among a number of premiers who advocated for its inclusion in the charter.
Importantly, though, Mr. Lougheed believed that section 33 should be imposed only after public deliberation and discussion. Does jamming through legislation on a Monday when much of Canada was glued to the TV watching the World Series align with this intention of thoughtful deliberation and discussion? Aside from the limited debate on that Monday night, MLAs had had little time to review and digest the legislation or to consult with their constituents before debate on the bill took place.
In representative democracies, elected representatives are supposed to carry out the will of their constituents (a principle taught in social studies). They can carry out the will of their constituents only if they actually have time to talk to them. And this was no ordinary legislation. This was legislation that stripped Albertans of constitutional rights without recourse to the courts.
Canadians are blessed to live in a country with a constitutionally enshrined charter of rights and freedoms that guarantees a host of rights necessary to living in a free and democratic society. That same charter provides governments the ability to pass laws that violate our rights and freedoms. The charter does not, however, protect those governments from the consequences of their actions.
The government lit a political fire in some of the most intelligent, organized and diligent professionals in the province. A government that believes it can get away with depriving its opponents of their political rights is a government that will continue to do it. And this government appears to think Albertans won’t fight back.
Let’s prove them wrong.
Will van Engen is a criminal defence lawyer based in Edmonton. He has appeared at all levels of court in Alberta and the Supreme Court of Canada.
