The Court of King’s Bench of Alberta quashed the province’s separation petition on Wednesday, holding that electoral authorities failed to uphold the duty to consult First Nations before approving the referendum proposal. This is the second time the provincial court has barred the province’s separation petition.
Justice Shaina Leonard held that the chief electoral officer owes a duty to consult before deciding to issue the petition under the amended Citizen Initiative Act (CIA). Leonard reasoned that the officer’s decision is the last step in the secession process that the First Nations can mount a legal challenge to defend their treaty rights. This is because constitutional negotiations and referenda are in the political realm and not legal disputes, according to a previous Supreme Court of Canada ruling. Thus, the officer’s decision to approve a petition may adversely affect Aboriginal claims or rights because the provincial executive is obliged to implement the result. The duty to consult then arises because the government gains knowledge of the First Nations’ claims and rights from a previous judicial review.
Leonard also found that the amended CIA “transitional provision” does not apply to the proposal because it was rejected by the officer before the amendment was enacted. In addition, she found that the officer should have rejected a second proposal following the court’s ruling on its incompatibility with the First Nations’ constitutional rights under Section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982.
On December 5, 2025, Justice Colin Feasby for the same court barred the first separation petition proposal on the ground that it contravenes the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and Aboriginal and Treaty rights. The officer rejected this petition three days after the ruling. Later, on December 11, the provincial legislature amended the CIA, removing the requirement for the petition to be compatible with the constitutional rights. The amendment also came with transitional provisions, deeming all pending proposals to have never been made. As a result, the proponent may submit a proposal on the same subject matter again with a fee waiver. Separation advocates did so one day after the amendment came into effect, and the officer accepted it. They also claimed to have collected sufficient signatures to initiate the referendum on May 7.
The Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation welcomed the decision. Chief Allan Adam added: “This decision reinforces the importance of Treaty rights, meaningful consultation, and the recognition of the serious impacts decisions like these would have on First Nations communities.”
Jeffrey Rath, lawyer for the petition proponents, criticized the court’s reasoning as “incomprehensible,” and riddled with errors of law. In a press conference, Premier Danielle Smith also said that “the ruling is incorrect in law and anti-democratic.” Both said they will appeal the ruling.
