Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Dispute arose over whether civilian personnel may conduct police conduct investigations under section 45(1) of the Police Act.

• The Alberta Labour Relations Board interpreted the statute to permit such civilian appointments, which the Court of Appeal found lacked adequate justification.

• The key legal error was the Board’s failure to consider the interplay between subsections 45(1) and 45(5) of the Police Act.

• Judicial review judge improperly supplemented the Board’s reasoning rather than assessing whether its own analysis was present in the original decision.

• The Board’s omission of relevant statutory context rendered its decision unreasonable under Vavilov.

• Appeal was allowed, the Board’s decision was quashed, and the matter was remitted for reconsideration.

Background and dispute over police complaint investigations

In Calgary Police Association v. Calgary (City), 2025 ABCA 145, the Calgary Police Association challenged the use of civilian investigators by the Chief of Police to handle certain conduct complaints against Calgary Police Service officers. Traditionally, such investigations were carried out by sworn police officers. However, beginning in 2020, the City of Calgary, operating through the Chief of Police, began assigning some of these roles to civilian employees.

The Association took issue with this change and brought an application before the Alberta Labour Relations Board, asserting that only police officers could perform these investigations under section 45(1) of the Police Act. It argued that the City’s policy offended section 36(3)(a) of the Police Officers Collective Bargaining Act, which prevents any restraint on a police officer’s statutory rights.

Board and judicial review findings

The Alberta Labour Relations Board ruled in favour of the City, finding that section 45(1) of the Police Act did not explicitly require investigations to be conducted by police officers. It reasoned that the Chief of Police has discretion to use civilians unless the Act specifically prohibits it. The Board also concluded that there was no violation of the collective bargaining statute. This decision was upheld by the Court of King’s Bench on judicial review, with the reviewing judge agreeing that the Board had reasonably interpreted the statute.

The judge acknowledged that the Board had not explicitly addressed the Association’s argument regarding section 45(5)—which refers to bringing in police officers from another service if no qualified officer is available locally—but found the omission immaterial. The judge offered his own statutory interpretation, concluding that the Board’s result was nonetheless reasonable.

Court of Appeal ruling on administrative reasonableness

The Alberta Court of Appeal allowed the Association’s appeal. The Court concluded that the Board’s decision was unreasonable under the Vavilov framework because it failed to address an essential interpretive issue: the relationship between section 45(1) and section 45(5) of the Police Act. While the Board acknowledged that s. 45(1) empowers the Chief to order investigations, it did not assess whether s. 45(5) implicitly limits that power by referring to the use of “necessary police officers” for such investigations.

The Court emphasized that reasonable decision-making requires an administrative body to address key legal and statutory context when resolving disputes. Because the Board’s reasons omitted any meaningful discussion of s. 45(5), and the reviewing judge attempted to fill in the gaps rather than assess the original decision’s sufficiency, the Court found the reasoning process deficient. It reaffirmed that courts reviewing administrative decisions must not substitute their own analysis in place of what the original decision-maker failed to address.

Judgment and outcome

The appeal was allowed. The Court quashed the Labour Relations Board’s decision and remitted the matter back to the Board for proper reconsideration, with specific direction to analyze the interplay between ss. 45(1) and 45(5) of the Police Act within the broader statutory scheme. This ruling reinstated the Calgary Police Association’s challenge and reaffirmed principles of administrative reasonableness under Vavilov. The outcome strengthens interpretive discipline in labour oversight affecting police administration.