On May 15, 2025, the Alberta government’s Bill 53: Compassionate Intervention Act (the “CIA”), achieved royal assent. Although the CIA is not yet in force, it raises a number of questions that regulatory bodies may need to consider. Below we discuss the implications of the CIA from the perspective of health professional regulation.

CIA Structural Framework + Decision-Makers

The CIA introduces a distinct governance structure in establishing the Compassionate Intervention Commission (the “Commission”).¹ The Commission would comprise a lawyer, physician, and member of the public, appointed by the Lieutenant Governor in Counsel. One lawyer member serves as Commissioner and Chair of the Commission.²

Under the CIA, parties who can report an individual allegedly struggling with addiction include adult family members and the following registered health professionals³:

1. Nurses
2. Physicians
3. Psychologists
4. Social workers
5. Paramedics
6. Addiction counsellors

Police or peace officers may also apply to have an individual assessed.⁴

An application is reviewed for completeness by the Statutory Director, and is then forwarded to a lawyer member of the Commission to make a determination on apprehension and assessment.⁵ If the lawyer member is satisfied, on a balance of probabilities, that the individual is likely to cause harm without intervention, the Commission must issue an apprehension order and an assessment order.⁶

Assessment, Detention + Treatment

Following initial admission, individuals may be detained for up to 72 hours under an assessment order.⁷Assuming an individual is assessed as requiring treatment, two options are available:

1. Secure Care Plan Orders (detention in a facility)
2. Community-Based Care Plan Orders (treatment in the community).⁸

Under s. 80 of the CIA, an individual who has capacity has the right to refuse treatment. However, a “client” may not refuse to be: (a) observed, monitored and assessed; (b) provided with clinical advice; and (c) administered a Schedule 1 drug.⁹ Further, a regulated member under the Health Professions Act, RSA 2000, c H-7, is expressly permitted to provide the preceding forms of treatment without consent.¹⁰

Regulatory + Ethical Considerations

There is potential for significant regulatory and ethical issues for regulated health professionals and their colleges. For instance, the CIA expects various regulated health professionals to participate in involuntary assessments and treatment implementation. Colleges may need to evaluate:

1. Whether they will support members who choose to act as conscientious objectors, despite CIA s 80(3) discussed above, and if so, how; and

2. How to address conflicting duties as between statutory obligations and standards or practice or codes of ethics, particularly where client autonomy is compromised.

Further, as the CIA authorizes treatment without consent, Colleges may wish to consider what guidance they will offer to their members regarding documentation, reporting, and accountability when making decisions about consent and when treating involuntarily detained clients who have not consented.

General Considerations + Questions

Notably, the CIA provides for broad statutory immunity from liability for those acting in good faith.¹¹ Such immunity applies, in effect, to anyone involved in the detention, assessment, and treatment of an individual under this Act. While statutory immunity is common in emergency health or mental health legislation, the scope and novelty of the CIA’s framework raise questions about accountability. Such immunity provisions would not apply to save regulated health professionals from disciplinary proceedings following unprofessional conduct. Regulators may wish to consider how they will respond if, for instance, harm results from good faith but misguided decisions made under a Care Plan Order. It is reasonable to expect that complaints to colleges might increase, as clients may be discontent with their situation even absent any unprofessional conduct.

More broadly, the necessity of the CIA itself invites scrutiny. The Mental Health Act, RSA 2000, c M-13, already provides a mechanism for involuntary detention and treatment where an individual poses a risk due to a mental disorder. Given that substance use disorders fall within the umbrella of psychiatric diagnoses, is a separate framework truly needed - or does the CIA risk fragmenting care and lowering the evidentiary threshold for coercive interventions? How does the existence of overlapping regimes affect legal clarity, consistency of care, and Charter compliance?

Conclusions

The proposed Compassionate Intervention Act may represent a significant legislative innovation in Alberta’s response to the addiction crisis. However, its structure departs sharply from the medical gatekeeping model of the Mental Health Act and introduces expansive roles for legal, administrative, and law enforcement personnel. This raises numerous challenges for professional regulators in reconciling coercive legislative authority with foundational principles of voluntary care, patient autonomy, and professional ethics. Close monitoring, regulatory agility, and ongoing review will be important to ensure that the implementation of the CIA supports and advances the mandates of implicated regulators and the duties of their members regarding safe, effective, and client-centered care.