Back to School: Teachers, Bill 2, and the Court of Public Opinion

On October 27th, 2025, the government of Alberta introduced Bill 2, the Back to School Act, which was designed to end the ongoing teachers’ strike in the province and to send teachers, school administrators, and students ‘back to school.’[1]

Three weeks earlier, the Alberta Teachers’ Association (ATA) rejected the government’s memorandum of agreement by 89.5%.[2]  The ATA launched a strike action aimed at significantly increasing teachers’ wages and attaining “sustainable solutions” to problems facing public education in the province, including crowded classrooms and underfunding.^[3] Bill 2 sought to retroactively impose the agreement rejected by the ATA, which included modest salary increases and addressed staff retention incentives in certain regions, but provided little in the way of ‘sustainable solutions’ to the ATA’s broader concerns.[4] The Bill also included preemptive measures to prevent future labour action by issuing fines for strikes and halting local bargaining discussions.^[5] The Bill invoked section 33 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to allow the legislation to operate notwithstanding sections 2 and 7 to 15 of the Charter. It swiftly passed through the legislature to receive Royal Assent on October 28th.^[6] 

Bill 2 finds its place among a number of controversial pieces of legislation targeting teachers’ labour rights that have arisen in recent years. In 2022, Ontario passed Bill 28, the Keeping Students in Class Act, which was designed to cap teachers’ wages and prohibit strike actions.^[7] In 2014, British Columbia passed legislation to suspend an ongoing teachers’ strike action and to limit collective bargaining on class sizes.^[8] In both cases, the legislation proved too contentious to survive. Bill 28 was politically untenable and was repealed shortly after it was passed,[9] whereas B.C.’s Bill 22 was found unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of Canada, albeit four years after the legislation was introduced.^[10] Nevertheless, scholar Alison Braley-Rattai observes that governments pay a very low price for passing back-to-work legislation:

[I]t is not surprising that Charter rights may take a backseat altogether, in the name of political expedience…Even where legislation is found to violate the Charter, usually many years after the fact, the common remedy is a declaration of invalidity. And mere invalidity of temporal legislation makes back-to-work legislation an attractive option when dealing with a pressing labour issue.^[11]

The ATA has launched a legal challenge to the government’s use of section 33, calling it “a reckless and historic abuse of power.”^[12] Human rights activist Ketty Nivyabandi has characterized the Bill as a blatant attack on teachers’ rights to freedom of expression, peaceful assembly, and association.[13] The government, meanwhile, has defended the Bill and its use of section 33, calling it “a serious decision” which the government “does not take lightly[,]” but asserts that it was necessary to return students to the classroom.^[14] It remains to be seen what will come of the ATA’s challenge to Bill 2, but as Braley-Rattai notes,[15] the temporal nature of back-to-work legislation means the government’s use of section 33 has already achieved its intended results: students and teachers are back in school for the 2025/2026 school year. A finding that the Bill is unconstitutional years from now cannot change that. Indeed, the text of the Act so much as anticipates Charter invalidity since the Bill is set to be repealed in 2028.^[16] If necessary, Alberta could pass new legislation to replace it, effectively resetting any court challenges.

In the absence of sufficient constitutional protections and in the presence of drawn-out litigation, the viability of teachers’ labour action in Alberta and in Canada will likely continue to be decided in the political rather than legal sphere—in the Court of Public Opinion.^[17] Teachers have little option but to hope for a passing grade.

-SH

[1] Alberta Teachers’ Association, ATA launches legal challenge against Bill 2 (Edmonton: The Alberta Teachers’ Association, 2025), online: https://teachers.ab.ca/news/ata-launches-legal-challenge-against-bill-2.

[2] ATA launches legal challenge, supra at note 1, at para 1.

^[3] Alberta Teachers’ Association, Media Release, “Teacher strike imminent” (29 September 2025), online: https://teachers.ab.ca/news/teacher-strike-imminent; Alberta Teachers’ Association, Media Release, “Watch the news conference: historic strike hits province” (6 October 1025), online: https://teachers.ab.ca/news/watch-news-conference-historic-strike-hits-province; ATA launches legal challenge, supra at note 1, at para 1.

[4] Bill 2, Back to School Act, Second Sess, 31st Leg, Alberta, 2025, cls 10(2), 6(2) (assented to 28 October 2025), SA 2025, c B-0.5.

^[5] Bill 2, Back to School Act, supra at note 4, at para 2.

^[6] Bill 2, supra cl 3(a); ATA launches legal challenge, supra at note 1, at para 1.

^[7] Russel Groves and Emily Kroboth, Ontario introduces Bill 28, the Keeping Students in Class Act, 2022 (Toronto: Dentons, 2022), online: https://www.employmentandlabour.com/ontario-introduces-bill-28-the-keeping-students-in-class-act-2022/.

^[8] Government of British Columbia, News Release, “Bill 22 passed by the B.C. legislature” (15 March 2012), online: https://news.gov.bc.ca/releases/2012EDUC0024-000302; Eric Tucker, “BC Teachers’ Teachers’ Federation v. British Columbia: The Supreme Court Takes a School Holiday” (2018) 73:3 Industrial Relations 603.

[9] Colleen Nevison, Ontario Repeals Bill 28, Keeping Students in Class Act, 2022 (Toronto: Hicks Morley, 2022), online: https://hicksmorley.com/2022/11/14/ontario-repeals-bill-28-keeping-students-in-class-act-2022/.

^[10] “BC Teachers’ Teachers’ Federation v. British Columbia” supra at note 8, at para 3.

^[11] Alison Braley-Rattai, “What Have You Done for Me Lately? Back-to-Work Legislation and the Constitutional Right to Strike” (2020) 86:1 Lab 148, doi: 10.1353/llt.2020.0043.

^[12] ATA launches legal challenge, supra at note 1, at para 1.

[13] Amnesty International, Amnesty International Canada Condemns Alberta Government’s Use of Notwithstanding Clause in Bill 2 (Toronto: Amnesty International Canada, 2025), online: https://amnesty.ca/press-releases/alberta-notwithstanding-clause-bill-2/.

^[14] Noah Brennan and Devon Dekuyper, “‘A very dark day for education’: Teachers, parents worry over province's back-to-work legislation”, Calgary Herald (27 October 2025), online: https://calgaryherald.com/news/politics/dark-day-education-alberta-teachers-parents-province-legislation-bill-2.

[15] What Have You Done for Me Lately?” supra at note 11 at para 3.

^[16] Bill 2, supra cl 15(a).

^[17] “What Have You Done for Me Lately?” supra at note 11 at para 3.