Our local governments insist we are criminals, so we are standing up for ourselves and our Charter rights.

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, 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.

This means we have exhausted our police oversight options, meaning protest is 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, 

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, or the Supreme Court of Canada while accusing us of being criminals, all while 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.

The City of Calgary:

Despite our achievements, the City of Calgary maintains that criminal public nudity has occurred if we are "open to public viewing" despite the existence of Hidden Beach and Weaselhead. The City of Calgary refuses to explain how Hidden Beach and Weaselhead can exist with their legal interpretation. Both the Calgary Police Service and City of Calgary are well aware of Calgary's clothing-optional areas. Weaselhead has been used for nude recreation for over 25 years and is now next to a major highway. We marked Weaselhead and Hidden Beach on Google Maps in 2020. We notified the City of Calgary and the Calgary Police Service when we began using Hidden Beach in 2020. Alberta Parks also received a courtesy notification since Hidden Beach is in a Provincial Park. The use of these areas for nude recreation is no secret, yet the City of Calgary maintains that nude recreation is a criminal offence.

In maintaining their position, the City of Calgary is offending our 2(b) Charter rights by effectively maintaining that our values and expression are not worthy of any Charter protections. Instead, we are treated as "tolerated" as long as its convenient for the City of Calgary.

City of Calgary Permit Rejection

The following are two emails from the City of Calgary where they make statements such as "public nudity is illegal, and therefore, the City of Calgary is only able to offer private bookings for clothing optional events that are not open to public viewing". Accordingly, our permit applications were summarily denied and the City of Calgary is not willing to revisit their incorrect assertion. The City of Calgary has made five categorical claims that nude recreation is always criminal. Calgary even denied us a permit for an activity at Weaselhead by claiming that public nudity is criminal. Calgary's interpretation of the law does not survive contact with reality.

The City of Calgary's interpretation of the law is inconsistent with the Calgary Police Service, Alberta Parks, Parks Canada, the Lake Louise RCMP, the Banff RCMP, the Attorney General of Canada, and the Alberta Crown Prosecution Service.

Additionally, the City of Calgary suggested Clearwater park for us to use in email 2, and as of March 2025 we have still been unable to complete that booking because the City of Calgary appears to be worried that we'll be "open to public viewing". Why doesn't this standard apply to Hidden Beach or Weaselhead?

1 - City of Calgary Email About "Not open to public viewing".

2 - City of Calgary Permit Rejection & "Public nudity is illegal".

The City of Calgary is Flat Wrong:

There are clothing-optional beaches all across Canada. The World Naked Bike Rides (WNBR) happen all over Canada, even as close as Edmonton. The Edmonton WNBR has had police escorts in years past, who followed them for the entire route without any arrests. There is clearly no ban on public nudity as the City of Calgary maintains.

The City of Calgary's interpretation of the law is contrary to the Attorney General of Canada, the Alberta Crown Prosecution Service, The Calgary Police Service Chief Constable Mark Neufeld, the Lake Louise RCMP and the town of Banff RCMP.

What Started This:

In 2018, Calgary Nude Recreation (CNR) was the target of threats of violence, a bomb threat, threats of vehicle vandalism, outrage, and a $500 bounty on the identity of the organizer of CNR which is still available for viewing on Facebook. Our group was to only make up about one third of the people in that facility, with the other two groups mostly being comprised of hockey kids and mothers with their 3-8 year old daughters doing gymnastics. These threats resulted in the cancellation of a private indoor swim that was to be out of the public eye and hidden from view. As a result, Calgary Nude Recreation (CNR) began an advocacy campaign to establish that nude recreation as legitimate and lawful. 

Then in 2024, a nudist group in Toronto received threats and outrage, which resulted in policy changes and changes to the nudist website. 

Our community regularly receives threats of violence by people who seek us out no matter where we are hidden. Therefore, we are seeking formal recognition that contextually appropriate nude recreation is legitimate and lawful.

What CNR is Seeking:

Because of ongoing threats to our greater community, and because remaining hidden from the public is not good enough for some people, CNR is seeking formal recognition from the City of Calgary that nude recreation is legitimate and lawful.

We wouldn't need to do this if our community didn't receive threats of violence every few years.  We are asserting our 2(b) Charter rights in the face of these threats and we have full faith in the police to correctly identify the source of problems that we encounter through our advocacy.

Formal recognition can come in many forms. For example, the City of Calgary can issue CNR permits for outside activities instead of informing us that our form of recreation constitutes a criminal offence. Alternatively, the City of Calgary can recognize the legitimacy of Hidden Beach and Weaselhead. There are many more options available.

Currently, the City of Calgary "lets" nude activities happen in public as long as they don't have to "approve" it, but also continues to maintain that we are committing criminal offences when we do. We wish to end this hypocrisy.

We wish to establish that contextually appropriate nude recreation is legitimate and lawful.

Why This is Important to Us:

Keeping nude recreation hidden in darkness makes us easy targets for the anger and outrage of a vocal minority and forces us to stand alone when we are attacked.

Bringing nude recreation into the light allows the police to correctly identify the source of disruptions to the public peace by focusing on the behaviour of the individual rather than their nudity.

When nude recreation is viewed as criminal, we are perceived as being antagonistic for peacefully enjoying our day, even when we are out of sight or are in a private facility.

Keeping clothing-optional areas mired in legal ambiguity means public sex acts are common in these areas because no one wants to call the police on themselves for being nude. This allows criminals to commit criminal acts in broad daylight and casts nude recreation in a bad light.

2(b) Charter rights are not limited by what some people find offensive, or even by the fear that someone might be offended at some theoretical future time.

CNR's Successful Advocacy:

Among CNR's many advocacy achievements, we established Hidden Beach in Fish Creek Provincial Park, Calgary's second clothing-optional area. We established Hidden Beach by marking it on Google Maps and then using it accordingly because nude recreation is lawful. We established Hidden Beach because Alberta Parks maintained that nude recreation is a criminal offence and was attempting to use park regulations to prohibit our activities. We then asked Parks Canada about hosting activities in Banff. Parks Canada also tried to maintain that nude recreation is never allowed and also attempted to use park regulations to prohibit our activities. Years later, Parks Canada continued to maintain that nude recreation is criminal and therefore not allowed. To demonstrate that Parks Canada was incorrect, we created GET NAKED BANFF which took place at Lake Louise. The RCMP threatened to arrest everyone the first year, but left us alone the next three because contextually appropriate nude recreation is legitimate and lawful.

We Welcome Everyone to Join Us:

For these reasons, we look forward to enjoying this iconic downtown location and we welcome everyone to join us.

CNR is inclusive of all persons, regardless of comfort level, sexual orientation, gender identity, or relationship status. Wear as much or as little as you choose, as all of our activities are entirely clothing-optional. 

This is a 2(b) Charter Rights Issue

We are a legitimate community group and we wouldn't need to assert our legitimacy if people didn't keep denying it. In denying our legitimacy, the City of Calgary and Calgary Police Service is effectively maintaining that our values and expression are not worthy of any Charter protections.

Nude Recreation is Expressive:

The courts have consistently ruled that contextually appropriate nude recreation is expressive. A complaint resolution from the RCMP's oversight board (the CRCC) to CNR states that "the objectives of the organization [CNR] as whole are indisputably a form of expression". We have clear 2(b) Charter protections for freedom of expression, yet the City of Calgary still refuses to recognize our rights as legitimate. 

For these reasons, we must stand up for ourselves and for the legitimacy of our 2(b) Charter rights. We insist that the City of Calgary acknowledge the legitimacy of contextually appropriate nude recreation and to stop calling us criminals for peacefully enjoying our day.