EDMONTON, AB – An Alberta judge has ruled that a proposed referendum question on provincial separation must be subject to a full judicial review, a decision he says is crucial for a healthy democracy. Court of King’s Bench Justice Colin Feasby’s written decision, issued Thursday, rejected an application to quash the court referral, stating that “The citizens of Alberta deserve to have these arguments made properly and heard in full.” He added, “Democracy demands nothing less.”
The ruling comes after Alberta’s chief electoral officer, Gordon McClure, referred the question to the court to determine its constitutionality, including its potential impact on treaty rights. The question, submitted by Mitch Sylvestre of the Alberta Prosperity Project, asks: “Do you agree that the province of Alberta shall become a sovereign country and cease to be a province in Canada?” The group had sought to have the court referral dismissed, arguing that judicial scrutiny was premature since the question had not yet garnered the required signatures to be placed on a ballot.
Judge: “Citizens [need] accurate information”
Justice Feasby, however, rejected this argument. He noted that provincial law allows the chief electoral officer to refer the question to the court at this stage of the process, a practice similar to other jurisdictions with citizen-initiated referendums. He stressed that a legal review before a vote could save both time and money, and that “Democracy flourishes when citizens have clear and accurate information.”
The ruling highlights a significant point of contention between the judiciary and the provincial government. While Justice Feasby and the chief electoral officer agree on the need for a legal review, Justice Minister Mickey Amery and Premier Danielle Smith have publicly criticized the electoral officer’s decision. Amery’s acting press secretary, Nathaniel Dueck, released a statement Thursday asserting that “Alberta’s government believes that the proposal is not unconstitutional and therefore should be approved and permitted to proceed.” The minister’s lawyer has also indicated plans to make submissions during the upcoming review.
Indigenous Voices and Future Court Dates
In a move to ensure a comprehensive review, the judge has appointed University of Alberta law Prof. Eric Adams and Edmonton lawyer Matthew Woodley as “friends of the court.” Their role will be to present arguments for and against the constitutionality of the proposed question. Notably, Justice Feasby has also prioritized the inclusion of Indigenous interveners who can provide evidence demonstrating how their treaty rights might be infringed upon by the separation question. Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation Chief Allan Adam has already announced his community will apply for intervener status.
Outside the Edmonton courthouse after the decision, Chief Adam called the ruling a “great win for Canada.” He urged the premier and her cabinet to stop entertaining separatists and instead focus on improving key provincial services. “Start building relationships with Albertans, and First Nations, and start building a relationship with Canada, instead of dismantling the whole process and causing confusion,” he said.
The legal proceedings will move forward with a hearing scheduled for the week of November 15, with the judge intending to issue a ruling before the end of 2025.
Duelling Referendum Questions and Political Positioning
This legal battle is unfolding as two competing referendum efforts are underway. If Sylvestre’s question is eventually approved, the Alberta Prosperity Project would need to collect 177,000 signatures within 120 days to get it on a ballot. However, a competing question, approved in June, seeks to have Albertans affirm their commitment to Canada. This proposal, from former Progressive Conservative deputy premier Thomas Lukaszuk, asks: “Do you agree that Alberta should remain in Canada?”
Because Lukaszuk’s application was approved before new provincial rules with lower signature thresholds took effect, he must collect nearly 300,000 signatures within 90 days. Lukaszuk, who is also applying to be an intervener in the case, praised the judge’s decision, saying it upheld the independence of the chief electoral officer. He also voiced a clear position on the matter, stating, “Albertans shouldn’t have to be signing any petitions to reaffirm our allegiance to Canada.”
For his part, the Alberta Prosperity Project’s lawyer, Jeffrey Rath, acknowledged that convincing the judge to dismiss the case was an uphill battle. He sees the ongoing court process as a new platform for separatists. “It’ll give us a lot more opportunity to continue to talk to our fellow Albertans about the benefits of independence,” Rath said.
