A lawyer who escaped political indoctrination encountered mandatory ideological training in Alberta
Roger Song was called to the Alberta bar in 2014 after years as a law professor in Beijing. Having lived through Maoist China’s political indoctrination and government coercion, he believed those experiences belonged to his past.
In 2019, the Law Society of Alberta required lawyers to complete mandatory “cultural competence” training as a condition of maintaining their licence to practise law. According to Mr. Song, the requirement reminded him of the ideological conformity he had experienced under the Chinese Communist regime.
Believing that a professional regulator should not compel political or ideological beliefs, Mr. Song challenged the Law Society’s requirements with lawyers funded by the Justice Centre.
Mr. Song argued the Law Society exceeded its proper role
Mr. Song’s constitutional challenge targeted several Law Society rules and policies that, he argued, transformed professional regulation into ideological regulation.
Among the challenged provisions were:
- Rule 67.4, which permitted the Law Society to impose a broad range of mandatory requirements extending beyond Indigenous education;
- Rules 67.2 and 67.3, which required lawyers to prepare annual Continuing Professional Development plans based on a new Professional Development Profile that Mr. Song argued redefined professional competence in ideological terms;
- Part 6.3 of the Code of Professional Conduct, governing harassment and discrimination, which Mr. Song argued expanded legal ethics in ways that suppressed legitimate disagreement.
Mr. Song also argued that the Professional Development Profile and related policies were so vague that lawyers could not comply without adopting approved ideological viewpoints.
According to Mr. Song, these requirements formed part of what the Law Society described as its broader policy objectives and represented an improper exercise of regulatory authority that violated his Charter freedoms of conscience and expression.
Lower court upheld the Law Society’s authority
In September 2025, the Alberta Court of King’s Bench dismissed Mr. Song’s challenge and upheld the Law Society’s authority to require mandatory ideological training and to amend its Code of Professional Conduct to include broad prohibitions on harassment and discrimination.
Mr. Song maintained that the decision permitted a professional regulator to compel ideological conformity that had nothing to do with lawyers’ competence to practise law.
Appeal argued professional regulators cannot compel ideology
On October 9, 2025, lawyers funded by the Justice Centre appealed the King’s Bench decision to the Court of Appeal of Alberta.
The appeal argued that the Law Society improperly redefined professional competence in ideological terms and violated Mr. Song’s Charter rights by compelling participation in politically motivated training.
Constitutional lawyer Glenn Blackett said, “The Law Society seems bent on transforming Alberta lawyers into a sort of woke commissariat, who see Western legal systems like our Constitution as systems of colonial and anti-black oppression.”
Reforms to professional regulation
On December 3, 2025, the Justice Centre launched a national campaign urging provinces to restore professional regulators to their traditional role of overseeing professional competence and ethical conduct, rather than compelling speech or imposing political ideology on regulated professionals.
Appeal sought full consideration of constitutional arguments
As the appeal progressed, a dispute arose over what materials the Court of Appeal could consider.
Lawyers funded by the Justice Centre asked the Court to permit the inclusion of written submissions from the original King’s Bench proceeding, arguing they were necessary to demonstrate that important constitutional arguments had not been addressed by the lower court.
According to Mr. Song, excluding those materials would make it difficult for the Court of Appeal to fully assess whether the lower court failed to answer central issues raised in his constitutional challenge.
Constitutional lawyer Glenn Blackett said, “Mr. Song has already been denied justice when the lower Court substantively failed to respond to the case he made. The Court of Appeal’s procedural rules, which would keep that case largely out of the appeal record, threaten a second denial.”
The appeal remained before the Court of Appeal. The Court had not yet determined whether the additional materials would form part of the appeal record before the appeal proceeded on its merits.
