Under the current Canadian constitutional framework, Parliament has authority over criminal law and criminal procedure, while provinces administer justice and organize provincial courts.source supportedmedium risk
/ Claims and evidence
Who would make criminal law, run prosecutions, and keep courts operating after independence?
Key claims used in this dossier, paired with the sources that support them. Claim status and risk labels come from the public claim ledger for this topic.
Alberta currently operates court services and a Crown prosecution service within the Canadian criminal-justice framework.source supportedmedium risk
An independent Alberta would need explicit transition law or agreements to preserve criminal offences, pending prosecutions, court jurisdiction, orders, appeals, custody, records, and enforcement cooperation.inferencehigh risk
The strongest pro-independence case is that Alberta could copy existing criminal law initially, keep courts and prosecutions operating, and later make criminal-law policy directly through Alberta institutions.inferencemedium risk
The strongest anti-independence / pro-federation case is that criminal-law continuity should not be assumed without binding legal authority, court-transition rules, prosecution plans, rights protections, and Canada-facing cooperation agreements.inferencehigh risk
This topic remains uncertainty-labelled: high, because criminal law, prosecutions, courts, appeals, custody, records, rights protections, policing interfaces, and intergovernmental enforcement cooperation depend on future legislation, agreements, staffing, budgets, and judicial interpretation.source supportedmedium risk