- Thread starter
- Staff
- #1
Dadparvar
Staff member
- Nov 11, 2016
- 11,064
- 0
- 6
The Court of King’s Bench of Alberta quashed the province’s separation petition on Wednesday, holding that the authorities failed the duty to consult the 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 found that the chief electoral officer owes a duty to consult before deciding to issue the petition under the amended Citizen Initiative Act (CIA). Even though the officer belongs to the legislature, Leonard found that his decision is the last step in the secession process that the First Nations can mount a legal challenge to defend their treaty rights. As she observed from a previous Supreme Court of Canada ruling, constitutional negotiations and referenda are in the political realm, not legal disputes. In other words, 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 thus arises because the government knows the First Nations’ claims and rights from a previous judicial review.
The court also ruled that the officer erred in law in approving the petition proposal. Leonard found that the amended CIA transitional provision does not apply to the first proposal because it was rejected before the amendment was enacted. In addition, she found that the officer should have rejected the 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, according to the original CIA. Later on December 11, 2025, the provincial legislature amended the CIA, removing the requirement for the petition to be compatible with the constitutional rights. The amendment also comes with transitional provisions, deeming all pending proposals to have never been made. As a result, the proponent can submit a proposal on the same subject matter again with a fee waiver. They 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.
Jeffrey Rath, lawyer for the petition proponent, criticized the reasoning as “incomprehensible,” claiming that there are numerous errors of law. He argued that signing the petitions cannot offend Treaty rights. 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.
The post Alberta judge quashes separation petition for violating First Nations right to consult appeared first on JURIST - News.
Continue reading...
Note: We don't have any responsibilities about this news. Its been posted here by Feed Reader and we had no controls and checking on it. And because News posted here will be deleted automatically after 21 days, threads are closed so that no one spend time to post and discuss here. You can always check the source and discuss in their site.
Justice Shaina Leonard found that the chief electoral officer owes a duty to consult before deciding to issue the petition under the amended Citizen Initiative Act (CIA). Even though the officer belongs to the legislature, Leonard found that his decision is the last step in the secession process that the First Nations can mount a legal challenge to defend their treaty rights. As she observed from a previous Supreme Court of Canada ruling, constitutional negotiations and referenda are in the political realm, not legal disputes. In other words, 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 thus arises because the government knows the First Nations’ claims and rights from a previous judicial review.
The court also ruled that the officer erred in law in approving the petition proposal. Leonard found that the amended CIA transitional provision does not apply to the first proposal because it was rejected before the amendment was enacted. In addition, she found that the officer should have rejected the 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, according to the original CIA. Later on December 11, 2025, the provincial legislature amended the CIA, removing the requirement for the petition to be compatible with the constitutional rights. The amendment also comes with transitional provisions, deeming all pending proposals to have never been made. As a result, the proponent can submit a proposal on the same subject matter again with a fee waiver. They 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.
Jeffrey Rath, lawyer for the petition proponent, criticized the reasoning as “incomprehensible,” claiming that there are numerous errors of law. He argued that signing the petitions cannot offend Treaty rights. 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.
The post Alberta judge quashes separation petition for violating First Nations right to consult appeared first on JURIST - News.
Continue reading...
Note: We don't have any responsibilities about this news. Its been posted here by Feed Reader and we had no controls and checking on it. And because News posted here will be deleted automatically after 21 days, threads are closed so that no one spend time to post and discuss here. You can always check the source and discuss in their site.