Bill 9 prompts new Fairness and Safety in Sport Policy at U of C, draws criticism from student groups

By Vama Saini, February 2 2026—

The University of Calgary has implemented a new Fairness and Safety in Sport Policy following the passage of Alberta’s Bill 9, legislation that invokes the notwithstanding clause to shield several provincial laws from Charter challenges.

Bill 9 — formally titled the Protecting Alberta’s Children Statutes Amendment Act — received Royal Assent on Dec. 11, 2025. Introduced by the Government of Alberta, the legislation uses the notwithstanding clause to protect multiple statutes, including restrictions on gender-affirming health care for minors, new parental notification and consent requirements in schools and the Fairness and Safety in Sport Act.

According to the provincial government, the legislation is intended to “preserve the future choices of children and youth,” strengthen parental authority and ensure “fairness and safety in amateur competitive sports.”

Under the Fairness and Safety in Sport Act, governing bodies of amateur competitive sports in Alberta are required to limit participation in women’s and girls’ sports to athletes whose sex was recorded as female at birth. The Act came into force on Sept. 1, 2025, alongside the University of Calgary’s Fairness and Safety in Sport Policy.

What the U of C policy requires

The university policy applies to Dinos women’s varsity sports and competitive club sports. Athletes wishing to compete must attest in writing that their birth registration record states they were recorded female at birth. Birth registration documents differ from birth certificates and cannot be amended after registration.

Athletes may be formally challenged if their eligibility is questioned. If a challenge is deemed credible by the Director of Dinos Athletics or a delegate, the athlete may be asked to provide their birth registration record. While a challenge is under review, athletes are permitted to continue competing.

The policy does not apply to Students’ Union or Graduate Students’ Association sporting events or clubs, which remain open to students of all genders.

Student leaders condemn the policy

In a joint statement released on Dec. 10, the Students’ Union (SU) and the Graduate Students’ Association (GSA) condemned the policy, arguing that trans-exclusionary rules do not improve fairness or safety in sport.

“The stated aim of the policy is to enhance fairness and safety in women’s sports,” the statement reads. “The SU and GSA have not seen evidence to suggest that exclusionary policies achieve this aim. Rather, there is evidence to suggest they achieve the opposite.”

The statement argues that such policies may reduce overall participation in women’s sports, reinforce gender stereotypes and expose athletes who do not conform to traditional gender norms to harassment. It also highlights broader challenges facing women’s sports, including insufficient funding and institutional support.

The SU and GSA further state that trans and gender-diverse students already face disproportionate levels of harassment, poverty and mental health challenges and that the policy may introduce additional barriers for these students.

SU Vice President Academic Gabriela Dziegielewska said the policy is fundamentally invasive and harmful to students.

“It violates the dignity of students and it’s essentially an institutional permission to target both trans and cis women athletes on this campus,” Dziegielewska said.

Compliance versus institutional choice

While the university has stated the policy is required to comply with provincial law, the SU says the institution still had discretion in how the policy was designed.

“We are quite frustrated with the university because, while we understand that they are required by law to pass this policy, they did not attempt to defang it as much as they could,” Dziegielewska said. “They opted to create provisions in the policy that could potentially cause a lot of harm to students, that they didn’t have to do.”

Dziegielewska said the SU’s position was informed by consultations with campus groups and existing research.

“We consulted with the Q Centre. We worked with the GSA². We also did our own research into how these types of policies play out in practice,” she said. “And we found that it doesn’t really improve fairness or safety at all.”

She added that the policy creates new opportunities for scrutiny of all women athletes.

“It creates an opportunity for cis women to be targets if they are not conforming to female beauty ideals. Maybe you’re hairy, maybe your voice is too deep. It is intrusive for trans students as well,” she said.

Amendments adopted — and rejected

According to the SU, some of its proposed amendments were adopted by the university. One change shortened the timeline for determining whether an eligibility challenge is credible from 30 business days to 10.

“We believe that students should not be exposed to prolonged stress because of this kind of invasive investigation,” Dziegielewska said.

The SU also pushed for a parallel process allowing the Dean of Kinesiology to decide whether a dismissed challenge should be reopened from 30 to 10 days and secured a provision requiring the university to pay upfront for any costs students incur when retrieving required documentation.

However, the university declined to adopt what the SU described as a key safeguard against abuse.

“To prevent abuse of the policy, we proposed that only the associate directors of Dinos Athletics should be allowed to make a formal challenge against an athlete,” Dziegielewska said. “The university did not adopt this suggestion.”

Instead, the policy allows a broader group — including students, coaches from rival teams and individuals working for the league — to submit challenges.

“This very clearly incentivizes rival athletes or disgruntled parents to wield this policy as a weapon against our own students, and it is unacceptable,” she said.

Impact on student participation

Dziegielewska said it remains difficult to fully predict how the policy will be used but warned that similar policies elsewhere have discouraged participation in women’s sports.

“It’s tough to say how the policy is going to play out until the policy actually gets used against someone,” she said. “What we do know is that when these types of policies are implemented, they actually discourage participation from cis women and girls in sports.”

“It doesn’t feel like an inclusive environment, so I think that one effect of it will be that the interest of women playing in sports will go down,” she added.

Supports and next steps

The SU and GSA are encouraging students impacted by the policy to reach out for support. Available resources include student executives, the SU Q Centre, the GSA’s equity and gender-focused committees, the Student Conduct Office and the Sexual and Gender-Based Violence Prevention and Support Office.

“Come talk to the SU and the GSA and we will do everything we can to support the student through the process,” Dziegielewska said.

She noted that the policy states vexatious or bad-faith complaints can be punished under existing university conduct policies.

For students concerned about the policy’s impact, Dziegielewska emphasized that they are not alone.

“Students are supported,” she said. “If a student gets targeted, they are a part of our campus community and we’re going to stand behind them if anything happens.”

Bill 9 remains in effect under the notwithstanding clause, which prevents courts from striking down the protected legislation for a renewable five-year period. The U of C has stated that its policy is required to comply with provincial law, while student leaders say advocacy efforts will continue.

Students with questions about the policy are encouraged to contact their respective student associations for guidance and support.