COURT DECISION ON THE ASSOCIATION’S INJUNCTION APPLICATION

On March 13, 2026, the Court of King’s Bench of Alberta rendered its decision on the Alberta Teachers’ Association’s request for an injunction to suspend Bill 2, the Back to School Act, while the Association’s constitutional challenge is pending.

Justice Douglas Mah dismissed the injunction application. This means that Bill 2 remains in effect for now, and the legislatively imposed settlement continues to regulate teachers’ employment conditions.

This ruling does not determine whether Bill 2 is constitutional. The Court will continue to hear the Association’s full constitutional challenge during the week of September 21, 2026. Members interested in reading Justice Mah’s decision can do so by clicking here.

Justice Mah emphasized that his decision should not be interpreted as an endorsement of the government’s actions or of the legislation itself. His role was not to assess whether the legislation is fair or good public policy. Instead, the Court’s task was to apply the legal test used in Canada to determine whether legislation should be temporarily suspended while a case proceeds.

Justice Mah also acknowledged the strong feelings surrounding the legislation and its effect on teachers:

I can well imagine the incredulity, if not the despair and disrespect, that teachers felt upon the passage of the [Back to School Act]. (para 77)

At the same time, the Court explained that injunction decisions must be based strictly on legal criteria, not personal views or political considerations. Justice Mah noted that although he is aware of the public debate surrounding Bill 2, his decision had to be based on the law and the arguments presented by the legal teams representing both parties.

Teachers understand that their decision to exercise their constitutional right to strike was motivated not only by a lack of progress on key issues but also by decades of underfunding that created the current teaching and learning conditions. However, the Court could address only the current situation. In the assessment, Justice Mah indicated,

I am not saying the Alberta Government governed effectively by enacting the [Back to School Act] and ending the strike by imposing a new collective agreement. Any views I might have in that regard are entirely irrelevant. I must deal with the circumstances presented to me, not what caused them. I must determine whether the public—now, today—is better served by granting or not granting the injunction, given those circumstances. (para 102)

What the Court Considered

To determine whether to grant an injunction, courts use a three-part legal test established by the Supreme Court of Canada.

First, the applicant must demonstrate that there is a serious issue to be addressed. Justice Mah concluded that the Association satisfied this requirement. The Court acknowledged that the constitutional questions raised by the Association—particularly regarding the government’s use of the notwithstanding clause—are significant and warrant a full hearing.

Second, the Court examines whether irreparable harm will occur if the injunction is not granted. Justice Mah acknowledged that Bill 2 has had a significant impact on teachers and the collective bargaining process. However, he concluded that the legal threshold required to suspend legislation had not been met.

Finally, the Court must assess the balance of convenience (in other words, which outcome would cause less overall harm). In this case, Justice Mah decided that suspending the legislation could generate uncertainty about labour relations and school operations, and he concluded that the balance favoured keeping the legislation in place while the constitutional case proceeds.

What Happens Next

Although the Association’s application for an injunction failed, the constitutional challenge to Bill 2 persists.

The Court will hear the case in full during the week of September 21, 2026. At that hearing, the Court will assess whether the legislation infringes on teachers’ Charter rights, including the constitutional protections related to collective bargaining and strike action.

​Justice Mah made clear that the injunction ruling does not resolve those constitutional questions.

In his decision, he noted,

This is not the end of the road for the ATA and teachers. (para 110) p 3

WORTH SHARING

The Court of King’s Bench of Alberta has dismissed the Association’s request for an injunction to suspend Bill 2, meaning that the legislation remains in effect for now and teachers will continue working under the legislatively imposed settlement. Justice Mah’s decision does not determine whether the legislation is constitutional and should not be interpreted as an endorsement of the government’s actions or the law itself. The Court recognized that the Association’s challenge raises serious constitutional issues, particularly regarding the government’s use of the notwithstanding clause, and confirmed that those questions will be examined in full when the case proceeds to a constitutional hearing, scheduled for the week of September 21, 2026.

Read the full Worth Knowing.

#WeAreATA