_______________________________________________________________________________ 

TL:DR Skip to the conclusion at the end.

_______________________________________________________________________________

In a formal response to the Calgary Police Commission on 7 May 2026, the Calgary Police Service stated:

Wreck Beach proves their assertion about clothing-optional areas to be patently false, but we digress. We prefer factual evidence over anecdotal evidence.

So we went to a local public pool, entered the public change room, and saw public nudity.

Per our formal complaint:

The complaint pertains to the guidance document that the Calgary Police Service created, which was created as window dressing to appease formal oversight proceedings. It was never meant to be operational.

And the change room stunt proves it was never meant to be operational.

Our formal complaint used the police report from the change room stunt as a supporting document to prove that there is no categorical ban on public nudity. This means that the Calgary Police Service is now refuting the Calgary Police Service on the matter of categorical bans.

This police report is the type of evidence we seek in our advocacy. Its a legal document, a statement of facts.

Our formal complaint continued:

The focal point of the formal complaint is the framework used to guide them to their determination, or lack thereof.

Rather than presenting a coherent explanation or analytical framework, the CPS resorted to personal attacks, misrepresented what the formal complaint actually pertains to, and misrepresented what happened at the change room despite their own police body cameras that corroborates our version of events and not theirs:

The complaint could not be dismissed because the documentation makes clear that there are contradictions that need to be explained. They re-framed the incident to make this claim.

Their own police report from the change room stunt proves public nudity is NOT categorically illegal or banned. This is now a fact.

In other words, the police are acknowledging in practice that context matters, while formally arguing that nudity in public is simply a crime.

The “stunt” comment appears to reflect frustration that this contradiction was documented so clearly.

Again, instead of explaining their decision, the CPS resorted to personal attacks. This response was their formal opportunity to explain themselves, and they didn't. This is significant, as outlined below.

Calgary Police Commission - Oversight for the CPS

In the very near future the commission will convene on this issue. Their standard of review is "reasonableness". That test asks:

Did they use the right legal framework, explain their reasoning coherently, and arrive at a conclusion that makes sense based on the evidence and governing law?

More info on the Reasonableness test is available here: Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65

Our appeal to the Commission states:

We go on to explain the issue in more detail:

The Bind That The CPS Appears to be In

If The CPS backs off their categorical claim that all public nudity is banned so that they can explain why the change room nudity was lawful, they open up Calgary's clothing-optional beaches to the possibility that they are lawful too (i.e. "intended use").

If they don't back off their categorical claims, then change room nudity is criminal. ("any reasonable person" knows this is not the case)

So they deviated from the applicable framework that requires a contextual analysis by creating a new non-statutory category to explain why the law doesn't apply in a public change room (i.e. "private" and "semi-private"). The CPS appears to have attempted to swap over to privacy law designed to prevent public change room voyeur videos and photos, without explanation for when that change is to occur.

Additionally, the lawyer who is listed on the guidance document itself as the point of contact for questions about that guidance document (censored by us for privacy) failed to apply the guidance document to the most straightforward context imaginable - Public nudity in a public change room at a public pool.

That guidance document does not explain "semi-private" or explain when that guidance document is to no longer apply because the context is "semi-private". The CPS deviated from their own guidance document, and did so entirely without explanation. That is the crux of the issue, and why the CPS is so angry at us for pulling off the change room stunt.

Without the change room stunt, the guidance document appears to be working just fine, as they assured us it was in their formal filing, except for when they didn't even bother following their own guidance document in that exact same formal response.

Conclusion

While there is still no way to determine how the appeal will conclude, we are highly optimistic.

Rather than explain what their reasoning was that lead them to their determination, as required in these sorts of oversight scenarios, the CPS substituted personal attacks as their defence of an unstated analytical framework and why they deviated from their own guidance document.

We believe this leaves the Commission with nothing to review and nothing to evaluate for reasonableness. A determination alone, no matter how obvious the conclusion is, cannot be evaluated against the reasonableness standard. The reviewer may only evaluate what is presented by the respondent.

This formal response was the CPS's opportunity to explain, and they chose not to.

We believe this is because the CPS has no argument to present, hence their anger, misrepresentation of the change room stunt itself, and the incorrect framing of the formal complaint.

Wish us luck. =)