Judge quashes Alberta separation petition in favour of First Nations

[Eugene]

Source: Canadian Press

Judge quashes Alberta separation petition in favour of First Nations

By Jack Farrell The Canadian Press
Posted May 13, 2026 4:53 pm
Updated May 13, 2026 5:34 pm
2 min read

An Alberta judge has quashed a separatist petition, saying the provincial government had a duty to consult with First Nations.

Justice Shaina Leonard says the petition should never have been issued.

Lawyers for several Alberta First Nations had argued the province’s referendum process and its use by separatists are unconstitutional, as there’s no requirement for Indigenous consultation.

They also said separation would violate treaty rights.

-snip-

Read more: https://globalnews.ca/news/11848163/alberta-judge-quashes-separation-petition-in-favour-of-first-nations/

[Fiendish Thingy]

1. That's almost too bad

The referendum was nonbinding, and if passed, had many legal hurdles, including the Indigenous issues raised in this case.

If it came to a vote, it would not have passed, and hopefully would have damaged Smith enough to end her career in politics.

It will be interesting to see if Smith invokes the Notwithstanding Clause and ignores the court ruling, and goes ahead with the referendum.

If she does, I predict an even bigger defeat and political damage to her.

[rampartd]

3. alberta secession would have passed sure as brexit

and will be back before we know it.

drill baby drill

[Fiendish Thingy]

4. Nope, not a chance

A petition to keep Alberta as part of Canada got almost twice as many signatures as the separation referendum.

Only 25-30% of Albertans favor separation.

[u4ic]

8. Not even that

Hard core separatists are about 15%. The rest want to "send a message to Ottawa"

[carpetbagger]

5. I don't think she can.

The ruling was based on sections of the Charter and Constitution that aren't subject to the clause.

[Fiendish Thingy]

6. Ha! Checkmate!

I’ve learned a lot about Canada since I immigrated in 2012, but I wasn’t aware of sections of the charter that were excluded from the Notwithstanding Clause.

Probably because you only hear about it when a premier invokes it, not when they are blocked from invoking it.

Would you mind giving me the short version of what is excluded, and why?

[carpetbagger]

7. Charter rights and notwithstanding...

Last edited Fri May 15, 2026, 12:54 AM - Edit history (1)

The notwithstanding clause allows use to restrict court oversight of specific clauses, basically fundamental freedoms (analogous to the U.S. First Amendment), legal rights (defendant rights including Habeas Corpus, and the rights similarly enumerated in U.S. 4/5/6/8A), and equality/nondiscrimination rights. Everything else is not subject, including the rights related to free elections, language, and in this case, indigenous rights.

The Charter doesn't say much about indigenous rights, it just says that nothing in it is meant to curtail aboriginal rights granted previously, and the Constitution pretty much just affirms prior rights, in this case based on crown treaties and the Royal Proclamation of 1763 (and it's wild for an American-born person like me to think that history class tidbit is still around).

So in this case, the treaties are subject to court enforcement.

As to the theory, it goes back to the concept of "responsible government", understood in its 19th Century democratic meaning as a government whose personnel are ultimately put there, retained, and replaced by popular consent. The Charter debate that led to the notwithstanding clause centred around balancing individual rights against what would be potential court intrusions against the power of parliaments, who were the ones ultimately responsible to the people.

Living for 40 years south of the Mason-Dixon Line and then Alberta, I find the argument that core liberties can be entrusted in individual subdivisions problematic at best. But I've turned into that guy, like the old guys I used to see living in Miami as a kid whose politics were dominated by not wanting to see the problems of their old country in their new one.

On edit: Canadians, please correct misunderstandings you see here

[Spazito]

2. Excellent news...

It will be appealed no doubt but this is still very good news. With the breach of privacy re voter info and this decision, Smith finds herself between a rock and a hard place and I couldn't be happier.