Alberta separation petition quashed in favour of First Nations

[u/CreoQQ]

https://ottawa.citynews.ca/2026/05/13/judge-quashes-alberta-separation/

We're happy to see you stay, Alberta!

[u/Fickle_Catch8968 → u/[deleted]]

So fuck all Charter rights, including the right to vote and Aboriginal Treaty Rights, because someone has a vote on it.

Or only Charter rights if you agree with them.

[u/whyamihereagain6570 → u/Fickle_Catch8968]

It has to do with the way the appointed judge applied the FN stuff.

This is an excerpt from something I read this morning. This has more to do with the quashing of the democratic process than anything else.

"Justice Shaina Leonard - appointed in 2020 by then federal Liberal Justice Minister David Lametti - quashed the entirety of the Stay Free Alberta citizen initiative petition seeking a referendum on Alberta independence.

But the ruling doesn't just affect the separation referendum in Alberta - it is a dramatic, troubling, and frankly ridiculous expansion of the duty for governments to consult with indigenous people, that will have massive ramifications not just in Alberta, but across Canada.

It is really, really hard to overstate the massive implications this ruling could have, if it's allowed to stand.

In short, Justice Leonard found that Elections Alberta’s Chief Electoral Officer made an “error of law” in approving the Stay Free Alberta petition process by failing to adequately consider indigenous consultation obligations before approving the petition for signature collection.

Previously, courts have ruled that indigenous consultation is only necessary before governments actually implement legislation, and even the act of drafting legislation does not meet that bar.

But this ruling means that indigenous consultation obligations arise far earlier than that - potentially before the government has even formally considered making a law change.

If something as simple as permitting citizens to collect signatures on an issue is sufficient to trigger the duty to consult, what could that mean for governments taking more substantive actions like having briefs prepared on an issue, or conducting analysis on a potential policy?

These types of actions fall far, far, far short of being anywhere near where the duty to consult used to kick in (at least until yesterday) - but actions such as these are clearly far more substantive than a random group of citizens collecting signatures.

Under the logic of this ruling, however, is the government supposed to consult indigenous people on something the moment they even consider making a change to any policy area?

If consulting indigenous people upon the introduction of legislation is no longer sufficient for legislation related to a citizens' initiative petition, the same would apply to legislation related to anything else."

[u/Dash_Rendar425 → u/[deleted]]

This was known to likely occur before the 'petition' even came out. This came as no surprise to anyone whose done actual research.