Our Grievances with the Calgary Police Service

As of July 2026, the Calgary Police Service insists that all public nudity is banned without any explanation as to how two clothing-optional areas exist in their jurisdiction. They are incorrect according to the Alberta Crown Prosecution Service, the Attorney General of Canada, and the Supreme Court of Canada, as demonstrated in this section.

The Attorney General of Canada stated “not all acts of public nudity are criminal”, which wouldn’t be the case if all public nudity was banned.

The assertion of the Attorney General has been operationalized in practice at one of our activities. In 2022, the RCMP sent an email to the Alberta Crown Prosecution Service (ACPS) attempting to get “pre-approval” for criminal public nudity charges for GET NAKED BANFF. That is not how the law works. The ACPS effectively said “no” because public nudity is not banned. From the police report (Occurrence #2022995333):

That email from Deputy Chief Prosecutor James Sawa stated that a previous correspondence to CNR from the Assistant Deputy Minister (ADM) of the Alberta Crown Prosecution Service (ACPS) constitutes "the official position of the ACPS". Deputy Chief Prosecutor James Sawa did not take the position that all public nudity is banned. 

In the correspondence that deputy chief prosecutor James Sawa referred to, the ADM of the ACPS stated that any potential charges must be made on "a principled basis", which would not be required if all public nudity were banned.

The ADM of the ACPS advised us to work with the police, a very odd thing to say if all public nudity were banned.

Former Chief Constable Neufeld, in a formal complaint response, acknowledged that there are lawful instances of nude recreation that engage Charter rights. Chief Neufeld committed the CPS to develop a policy regarding lawful nude recreation.

Chief Neufeld, in a memo that we acquired, directed the CPS to develop a policy that defines "a lawful excuse" to be nude in public, among other requests. None of this makes sense if "all voluntary public nudity" is banned per the CPS formal response to the Calgary Police Commission. From that memo:

The CPS would have us believe that a chief-constable signed formal complaint resolution was drafted, approved, signed, and released without any legal guidance from the CPS legal department. The CPS would have us believe that the new administration sought legal advice and that this new advice is correct while Neufeld's position was entirely wrong, unfounded, and legally incorrect. We do not believe it is possible for a chief-signed formal complaint resolution to be signed without any input from their own legal team.

The CPS Got Cold Feet

We believe the CPS got cold feet on the matter of recreational public nudity and tried to backtrack. We believe this because it is the only thing that makes sense, because the only other explanation would be sheer incompetence on the part of the CPS, and we do not believe the CPS is incompetent. Rather, the CPS would prefer to cater to religious values instead of the law, which is precisely why morality law was replaced with the Labaye (2005) harms test. Morality law is too subjective, and nobody has a right to force their values or morals on others. This is explained thoroughly in the Supreme Court of Canada's reasoning in Labaye (2005).

Our belief in the CPS's cold feet is supported by the following reasons:

After a change in administration to a new chief constable, without any changes to the law, without any new precedent set by the courts, the CPS opted out of policy and instead implemented an ambiguous guidance document that undermines Chief Neufeld’s determination.

The CPS refused to define "a lawful excuse" or follow through with any of Chief Neufeld's commitments made in his formal complaint response or any commitments requested by his memo.

After pushback from CNR, and without any changes to the law, the CPS has now taken the position that all public nudity is banned in their formal response to the Calgary Police Commission.

So without any changes to the law and with the exact same legal team, the CPS has flipped from recognizing lawful instances of nude recreation that engage the Charter per the Neufeld resolution to the other end of the spectrum where the CPS now claims all public nudity is banned, and the only thing that changed was the administrative leader of the CPS. This is not how the law works.

Additionally, the CPS makes the claim that it is not possible to denote an area as clothing-optional. That position is difficult to reconcile with the existence of clothing-optional areas such as Wreck Beach or Hanlan's Point. The CPS is flat WRONG and the proof is self-evident:

Source: CPS Response to CPC, page 3

Morality Law, the Charter, and the Harms Test

The CPS refuses to acknowledge the existence of Chief Neufeld’s findings in his formal complaint response to CNR. In fact, all our complaints point to that complaint resolution and the CPS won't even acknowledge the existence of that chief-signed formal complaint response.

It is notable that in their filing with the Calgary Police Commission, the CPS referred to pre-Charter morality law from 1981 ( R v Diaz, 60 CCC. (2d) 39; 1981 Canlii 3388 (ONCJ) ) to support their legal position and never once referenced Labaye (2005), which is the current legal test for criminal public nudity per the Attorney General of Canada, as decided by the Supreme Court of Canada.

The police have no authority to create law, change law, or ignore law that they don't like.

The last time Canada's public nudity laws were substantively challenged, the Ontario Court of Justice rejected the Crown's proposed alternative legal test and held that the Supreme Court of Canada's Labaye (2005) harms test governs the assessment of indecency under s. 174. Applying that test, the court concluded that "the mere exposure of sex organs is insufficient to support a finding of indecency; more is required, such as masturbation or sexual posing or other such activity." The Crown therefore failed to prove indecency before the court proceeded to consider the separate issue of public order. This is to say that the courts positively administer the Labaye (2005) harms test. 

Specifically, the court rejected alternative legal tests presented by the Crown Prosecution Service in paragraph 56, and then discussed the Labaye harms test in paragraphs 57 through 91. The CPS refuses to acknowledge these facts.

A summary of the Labaye (2005) harms test starts at paragraph 62, though the entire document explains the reasoning of the Supreme Court of Canada. The summary of the harms test states:

The Labaye (2005) harms test requires a contextual analysis. That contextual analysis must consider, among other things, risk of harm of significant risk of harm, interfering with the autonomy of others, confronting the public, and psychologically harming others. This is reinforced by the Attorney General of Canada. We clearly do not meet this threshold when peacefully enjoying our day at secluded locations such as Hidden Beach or Weaselhead.

CNR continues to ask the CPS what their enforcement thresholds are, and the CPS maintains that answering our questions would constitute legal advice in both their complaint response and in their formal submission to the Calgary Police Commission. In doing so, the CPS appears to be asserting that the law is whatever they say it is. That is simply not how the law works. This is what we are bringing attention to. The CPS's blanket ban on public nudity simply does not align with the required contextual analysis. That contextual analysis is reinforced by Labaye (2005), the Attorney General of Canada, the ADM of the Alberta Crown Prosecution Service, the Deputy Chief Prosecutor, and a real life attempt by the RCMP to bypass that contextual analysis with "pre-approved" criminal charges, which was shut down by the ACPS by requesting a contextual analysis.

The CPS guidance document prohibits officers from threatening criminal charges until approval is granted by the Duty Staff Sergeant, a strange restriction if public nudity is banned and therefore criminal. Imagine the police making the same restriction for shoplifters or murderers. The CPS is contradicting itself on what constitutes criminal public nudity through its various documents, memos, and submissions.

Contradictory CPS Documents, Memos, and Communications

The CPS Collateral Issues memo also stipulates that the guidance document is to be disseminated when clothing-optional activities are to take place, which also contradicts the CPS stated position that public nudity is banned. What is the guidance document for if all public nudity is banned? The CPS will not answer this question.

Additionally, the CPS is violating their own guidance document by threatening us for activities that have not yet occurred. This is a clear violation of section 2.c.i., 2.c.ii., and 2.d.i. of their own guidance document.

These threats came from the Major Events Emergency Management Section (MEEMS) via email, who is responsible for assuring this guidance document is disseminated if a clothing-optional activity is to occur, per this memo.

So now we have a situation where the CPS directs officers to disseminate their guidance document when a clothing-optional activity is to occur, as described in this memo, yet threatens people who notify the CPS of those same activities, as demonstrated by this email. Engaging the CPS in accordance with its own internal guidance results in threats of criminal charges. Which is it, CPS? These are the behaviours of a confused organization. If we were wearing pants, none of this would be an issue, which means the pants are the source of these inconsistencies. Lawful public nudity makes the CPS uncomfortable, but discomfort does not change the law.

This is the type of hypocrisy our advocacy is trying to bring attention to.

Operationally, The CPS Recognizes Lawful Public Nudity

The CPS has repeatedly maintained that public nudity is banned, such as in this email:

This position is contradicted by the CPS's own operational decisions, as demonstrated below.

The CPS said that they would respond to all complaints of public nudity regardless of where they occur:

So on 26 November 2025 we attended our local public pool, walked into the public change room, and saw public nudity. Following instructions from the police, we reported that to the police (Incident #25515862). The responding officers found no criminal activity had occurred, demonstrating that the CPS does not, in fact, treat all public nudity as criminal.

Rather than acknowledging this contradiction, the CPS later attempted to resolve it by reclassifying the public change room as "not public."

That explanation creates several additional problems.

First, the CPS justified the distinction by relying on the "intended use" of the facility. That is a contextual analysis. The CPS therefore applies contextual analysis operationally while simultaneously denying that contextual analysis is relevant in its formal complaint responses.

Second, the same physical location cannot reasonably change from "not public" to "public" simply because different conduct occurs within it. For example, if someone committed an act of public masturbation or another Criminal Code offence in the same change room, the CPS would almost certainly regard the location as sufficiently public for those offences. Therefore, the CPS classification of the change room appears to depend on the outcome the CPS wishes to reach rather than on any consistent legal principle.

Third, the public is invited into the public change room to be out of the public view, except when the public enters the public change room, the public change room is then full of the public, which means the public is still in the public view when in the public change room. The CPS would have us believe that "the public" ceases to be "the public" when they enter a change room.

These contradictions disappear when you accept the public change room at the public pool is public, and that the public nudity in the public change room at the public pool is lawful public nudity because the change room is being "used as intended". Except being "used as intended" can then be applied to Hidden Beach and Weaselhead, which the CPS does not want to do. 

A more complete contextual analysis could look something like this:

• People need a place to change for the pool.
• There is no other reasonable place to change
• People reasonably expect to see nudity in a change room.
• People voluntarily enter a change room or can choose not to enter a change room.
• Its called "a change room".
• Nudity in a change room is a social norm and customary.
• Therefore, the nudity in a change room is lawful. 

There is no law anywhere that "legalizes" nudity in a change room. Society recognizes change rooms as lawful through context alone. The legality is achieved through a contextual analysis. If there was a law, then the CPS would have referenced it in their complaint response and appeal response to the CPC, and they did not do so, because it doesn't exist. The legality therefore arises from the context in which the nudity occurs, not from a location-specific exemption created by legislation.

This contextual approach is reinforced by the Alberta RCMP (K Division), who stated:

The contextual factors that make nudity lawful in a public change room are readily understood. People enter a change room for the purpose of changing clothes. Nudity is expected, temporary, and directly connected to that purpose. The lawfulness of the conduct arises from those surrounding circumstances, not because a statute specifically authorizes nudity in that location.

By contrast, the CPS appears to suggest that the application of the same federal Criminal Code provision differs depending on the municipality, without explaining why the contextual analysis it applies to public change rooms would not also apply to other situations where context is relevant.

This is the type of hypocrisy our advocacy is trying to bring attention to.

The CPS Automatically Equates Nudity with Sexuality

Canadian Courts have routinely upheld that mere nudity is not inherently sexual.

In the CPS event log for the service call (Incident #25515862), they classified non-sexual public nudity as a "sexual offence" by default. This conflates simple non-sexual nudity with sexual misconduct and raises questions about how reports of public nudity are categorized within CPS systems. The courts maintain that simple nudity is not inherently sexual, yet the CPS classifies them as the same by default. This is very concerning.

These are the types of issues our advocacy is attempting to bring attention to. The CPS calls this "adequate service" in their formal complaint response:

The Calgary Police Commission

Despite all these inconsistencies, the Calgary Police Commission (CPC) has determined that the CPS's complaint responses have fallen within the realm of "reasonable" in their appeal response.

From our perspective, that conclusion is difficult to reconcile with the record. If contradictory positions, unanswered questions, and internally inconsistent complaint responses are considered "reasonable," then police oversight appears to function more as a process that validates police decisions than one that meaningfully scrutinizes them.

With seven more complaints that we have in process, the CPC has ample opportunity to prove us wrong.

The End of the Administrative Process

This means we have exhausted our police oversight options, leaving protest as the last option available to us. Nude protests occur all across Canada, with the World Naked Bike Ride being the most known example. The closest iteration of the World Naked Bike Ride occurs in Edmonton every year. Yet the Calgary Police Service would have us believe that the law is different in Calgary. Morality law was replaced with Labaye (2005) to stop precisely these types of inconsistent interpretations of the law. 

Public Safety Issues (this section added 4 Aug 2026)

In October of 2025 CNR attempted to get a face-to-face meeting with CPS about public sex acts and other issues that occur at nude beaches in Canada.

When people believe recreational public nudity is a crime, people are unlikely to call the police because they are fearful that they'll be calling the police on themselves. That perception may reduce reporting and create an environment where offenders are less likely to be reported. We made that clear in our email to the CPS.

The CPS declined that meeting request by refusing to respond to our emails.

On 3 August 2026, CNR was contacted by a visitor of Weaselhead about a public safety issue involving sexual assault, a knife, and other physically aggressive acts. The person who contacted us explained that they were afraid of going to the police directly. 

In other words, the exact scenario that CNR tried raising with the CPS in October 2025.

It is extremely problematic when the public finds it safer to contact a recreational club (Calgary Nude Recreation) rather than the police when public safety is concerned. This is a very serious public safety issue that the Calgary Police Service is actively contributing to through its formal approach to nude recreation. To be fair though, all police services are doing this in Canada.

We filed a police report - CA26349015
The person who contacted us also eventually filed a police report - CA26349253

Unreported crimes happen all the time at nude beaches because people are afraid of calling the police on themselves. This is a Canada-wide problem. This is why the legitimacy of nude recreation must be formally recognized by law enforcement.

We'd like to make clear that our direct experiences demonstrate that officers in the field are fantastic and reasonable. Every field officer that we have spoken with has unequivocally stated that they care about public SAFETY, not public NUDITY. They all urge people to call the police anytime public safety is concerned. CNR also encourages everyone to call the police anytime they feel that they are threatened, however nobody believes us that the police will not care about public nudity. This information MUST come from the police management. The CPS management refuses to provide it. 

When we contacted CPS about public sex acts at Weaselhead and Hidden Beach in 2025, these reassurances about public safety did not occur.

When an officer is speaking on behalf of the organization (instead of as an individual working for an organization), the CPS freezes up and defaults to the institutional stance on the matter. For example, the CPS, in response to our meeting request, had to refer to legal before ultimately not engaging. To restate the issue, CNR contacted the CPS about criminal public sex acts that coincide with nude recreation, and the CPS had to refer to legal for guidance on the matter.

For the record, the correct response was:

"if you see someone masturbating in a City park, call the police".

In doing so the CPS would not have explicitly acknowledged the lawfulness of nude recreation and therefore maintained their preferred ambiguity on the matter. They couldn't even do that. This is the subject of a formal complaint that is currently being processed by the CPS. We emailed the Professional Standards Section (PSS), who processes complaints, with this new info.

This issue resurfaces at every instance that a formal position on nude recreation is required by CPS, as demonstrated in the CPS formal filings to the CPC. Management is the source of this issue. Management refuses to address this issue because they do not want to acknowledge lawful nude recreation. Field officers do not want to contradict their own management (nobody who cares about their job will contradict their own management).

Management has to be the one to fix this issue.

This is incredibly disturbing and it is a very serious matter when police conduct creates an environment where criminal activity can flourish and the reporting of those crimes is stifled. That's a double whammy, and our safety is impacted accordingly.

On 3 August 2026 we requested another meeting with the CPS to discuss this matter. We emailed every contact we have at the CPS, including CPS legal. We specifically requested a face-to-face meeting to get off email, so that a candid conversation can occur.

Imagine this scenario: A random member of the public, who knows nothing of public nudity laws in Canada, calls the police to ask about what to do if they witness crimes while they are sunbathing naked next to the river. The CPS responds "public nudity is a criminal offence". An individual officer may say "I don't care about nudity, I care about safety", but they'll also acknowledge that they are simply an individual in the organization, and another officer may respond differently. This exchange leaves that person with the impression that they will be calling the police on themselves if they call the police at all. They have no idea which officer will show up, whether that officer will be sympathetic or angry at nudity. It leaves the person feeling like calling the police is a very risky endeavor for themselves. This is where the problem is, and CPS management is perpetuating the issue through their formal stance on nude recreation.

We will not accept compromised safety simply because the CPS is afraid of acknowledging lawful public nudity in contextually-appropriate settings. Context matters. The conduct that has repeatedly been reported at isolated clothing-optional locations is far less likely to occur in a busy public space with constant foot traffic and numerous witnesses. So if the police refuse to provide safety because of their discomfort with lawful nude recreation, we will go where we are safe. We will go to Prince's Island park to enjoy our day sans clothing.

The Irony that the CPS Created

The irony is not lost on us. If the CPS chooses enforcement action against our legitimate protest at Prince's Island Park, it reinforces the very problem we are protesting: that people cannot safely call the police when they are participating in lawful nude recreation without fearing they will become the subject of police attention themselves. That, in turn, reinforces why this protest is necessary.

If, instead, the CPS allows the protest to proceed peacefully, it sends a different message. It demonstrates that people participating in contextually appropriate nude recreation can contact police when public safety is threatened without automatically becoming the focus of a criminal investigation. That is precisely the public confidence we have been asking the CPS to foster.

Conclusion: The Calgary Police Service is Flat Wrong

The ACPS has made clear that criminality under s.174 cannot be determined in advance and depends upon the specific facts, aka "a contextual analysis". That necessarily requires police to apply a contextual analysis when deciding whether intervention is appropriate. CNR has repeatedly asked what the framework is that guides that contextual analysis, but CPS refuses to explain it, even in an oversight setting. For these reasons, Prince's Island Park has become the focus of our demonstration: to challenge inconsistent institutional positions and to advocate for transparent, principled policing of contextual public nudity.

We chose Prince's Island Park to take a stand, not to disrupt. We just don't want to be called criminals for peacefully enjoying our day in quiet secluded areas. We are adhering to the law and are lawful citizens and we insist that the Calgary Police Service recognize that.

The CPS is clearly not adhering to the law, their own former chief constable, the formal position of the ACPS, the Attorney General of Canada, the Supreme Court of Canada, or the operational practices of the RCMP, while accusing us of being criminals and telling us to seek legal advice:

We are not the ones that need legal advice. Shame on the Calgary Police Service. 

In recap, the CPS's progression has been:

2024 CPS: We have no policy and need one to prevent infringing on Charter rights.

2025 CPS: Contextual guidelines created that prevents automatic enforcement action. 

2026 CPS: All public nudity is banned and no analysis is required.

The law has not changed. The CPS has changed.

Click here to go back to the Prince's Island Park - Clothing Optional Area main page