The Court of King’s Bench of Alberta quashed the province’s separation petition, ruling that the authorities failed in their obligation to consult First Nations communities. According to the court, this oversight contravened the duty to consult, a requirement rooted in the protection of Aboriginal and treaty rights under Canadian law. The decision marks the second time the provincial court has impeded Alberta’s attempts to push through a separation initiative.
Justice Shaina Leonard emphasized that the chief electoral officer should have fulfilled this consultation duty before approving the petition under the amended Citizen Initiative Act (CIA). Despite the officer’s position within the legislature, Leonard noted that his role is integral to the process of secession, providing a crucial juncture at which First Nations can legally challenge to protect their treaty rights. She referenced a Supreme Court of Canada precedent, underscoring the necessity of consultation given that constitutional negotiations and referenda enter the political sphere and may impact Aboriginal claims. Consequently, the duty arises because the government is aware of these claims from earlier judicial reviews (JURIST).
Beyond consulting obligations, the court found legal errors in the officer’s decision to approve the proposal. Leonard highlighted that the transitional provisions of the amended CIA did not apply to the initial proposal, which was dismissed before the amendment. Further, she noted that the officer failed to reject the subsequent proposal despite a court ruling that it conflicted with the constitutional rights of the First Nations under Section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982.
This decision follows a similar January 2025 ruling by Justice Colin Feasby, who also barred a prior separation petition proposal, citing contraventions of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, as well as Aboriginal and treaty rights. This earlier dismissal was followed by a December 2025 legislative amendment to the CIA, which sought to erase constitutional compatibility requirements, enabling petitioners to resubmit without additional fees. This legislative change allowed the tabling of a new proposal shortly after the amendment’s enactment (National Post).
Critics of the ruling, including Jeffrey Rath, the lawyer representing the petition proponent, described the decision as “incomprehensible,” citing multiple alleged legal errors. Premier Danielle Smith also denounced the judgment as incorrect and anti-democratic, confirming intentions to appeal the decision. Their position highlights ongoing tensions between provincial ambitions and constitutional realities in Canadian law.