The government of Alberta has filed an appeal against a judge’s decision that quashed a petition seeking to hold a referendum on Alberta separating from Canada.
In her May 13 ruling for Alberta’s superior trial court, Justice Shaina Leonard held that Alberta had failed to adequately consult First Nations before allowing the petition drive to proceed.
Court documents filed June 11 in Edmonton show Alberta intends to argue that the judge made 14 specific legal errors in reaching her judgment.
“Despite my personal support for remaining in Canada, I am deeply troubled by an erroneous court decision that interferes with the democratic rights of hundreds of thousands of Albertans,” Alberta Premier Danielle Smith previously said in a May 21 televised address where she announced that a question on whether or not to hold a binding referendum on separation would be included in a series of referendum questions put to Albertans this October.
Appeal
Despite the long timeline for resolving an appeal, Smith said it was important to appeal the court’s decision because it was wrong and in order to restore the province’s interpretation of the law.
Smith has called the judge’s ruling “anti-democratic,” while the organizing group behind the petition drive, Stay Free Alberta, is also appealing the court’s decision.
The group’s petition submitted to Elections Alberta in early May had gathered roughly 301,620 eligible signatures in favour of a referendum, higher than the minimum 177,732 signatures required for the petition to qualify as a referendum. Due to the court’s ruling, Elections Alberta can’t proceed with validating the signatures.
Several First Nations had previously launched a challenge against the petition and against Elections Alberta’s decision to authorize the petition drive to collect signatures.
The appeal filed June 11 argues that authorizing the petition did not necessitate consulting with indigenous communities and that Leonard’s ruling did not give sufficient consideration to the democratic nature of the petition process.
The appeal also plans to challenge Leonard’s interpretation of Bill 54, the Election Statutes Amendment Act, that was passed last December and allowed Stay Free Alberta to submit a new petition question after its original 2024 question became mired in litigation.
Bill 54 lowered the number of signatures needed for citizen-initiated referendums and extended the amount of time groups have to collect those signatures, as well as eliminated the authority of the Chief Electoral Officer to refer proposed referendum questions to the courts for constitutional review.
However, Leonard said that despite the legislation, Stay Free Alberta should not have been permitted to reapply with an amended question for a petition drive because its original question had already been rejected prior to the new law taking effect.
According to the appeal, the court erred by “improperly assuming that Alberta may not comply with its statutory and constitutional obligations.”
The court filing shows that Alberta is not seeking to have an accelerated hearing on the appeal.
Alberta NDP is criticizing the UCP government for appealing the court decision, and for including a question related to separation in the upcoming referendum.
“Appealing this ruling is a waste of time and taxpayer money,” Alberta NDP Leader Naheed Nenshi said in a statement.
“This UCP government continues to show that they’re focused on the wrong priorities.”
