Three First Nations groups appearing in court in Edmonton this week have completed their arguments in their legal fight against a proposed referendum on Alberta separating from Canada.

Sturgeon Lake Cree Nation (SLCN), Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation (ACFN) and the Blackfoot Confederacy have all brought legal challenges related to an independence petition and the potential referendum it could lead to.

On Tuesday and Wednesday, the court heard arguments from the SLCN and ACFN.

Their challenges differ as the SLCN is seeking an interim injunction to block the removal of a section of the Citizen Initiative Act that requires petitions to comply with the Constitution, specifically in terms of its protection of treaty rights.

The ACFN is seeking a judicial review, asking Justice Shaina Leonard to quash the decision by Alberta’s chief electoral officer to approve the independence petition. The First Nation argues the decision contradicts a prior court finding that the proposal violated treaty rights.

The First Nations’ lawyers also argued recent legislative amendments were introduced to circumvent that December court ruling from Justice Colin Feasby.

Similarly, the Blackfoot Confederacy has filed its own judicial review application to reverse the same decision.

The Blackfoot Confederacy, which represents the Piikani Nation, Siksika Nation and Kainai Nation (Blood Tribe), is also asking the court to declare the initiative petition null and void.

They are seeking portions of the amended Citizen Initiative Act to be declared unconstitutional. They also want a judge to rule that the Crown had a constitutional duty to consult and accommodate them, a duty they argue was not fulfilled.

Both the ACFN and the Blackfoot Confederacy are also seeking a stay order pending a final decision. A stay order functions like an injunction order and requires applicants to demonstrate a serious issue for review, irreparable harm and that the balance of convenience favours granting the order.

As part of that request, the Blackfoot Confederacy is seeking to pause further steps in the referendum process until the court rules on the judicial review.

Their lawyers argued the current signature-gathering stage sets in motion a mandatory path toward a referendum, and allowing it to continue risks “irreparable harm” to the First Nations’ constitutionally protected treaty rights.

They argued Alberta’s potential separation from Canada would fundamentally alter their relationship with the Crown, effectively removing Canada as a treaty partner and introducing new international borders that could fragment their traditional territory.

The hearing revolves around a petition started by a group called Stay Free Alberta. It has until early next month to gather nearly 178,000 signatures in an attempt to force a referendum on independence, a goal it says it has already accomplished.

Many of the arguments this week focused on the current stage of the process: the collection of signatures for the petition.

Alberta’s response

Lawyers for Alberta’s Ministry of Justice presented arguments Thursday in response to the ACFN and the Blackfoot Confederacy, framing many of the concerns raised by applicants as hypothetical.

They argued the matter before the court is limited to the petition stage — not a referendum — and said constitutional questions are not yet necessary to consider.

The province maintains that the duty to consult Indigenous groups is not triggered by the chief electoral officer’s administrative decision to authorize signature collection.

According to government lawyers, collecting signatures does not constitute Crown conduct that creates a direct adverse effect or a meaningful diminution of rights for First Nations.

Instead, they characterized the petition process as the beginning of political discussion and legislative development, distinct from decisions that directly affect land or resources.

The government’s lawyers argued the duty to consult would only arise at a post-referendum stage if the government begins considering how to implement a successful vote.

At that point, the Alberta government would be contemplating actual conduct to implement something from both a policy and practical standpoint.

The province’s lawyers further argued that the current judicial review is narrow in scope and does not meet one of the requirements of the duty to consult test, which requires a potential adverse impact on Aboriginal or treaty rights.

The province’s lawyers argued Alberta cannot unilaterally change the Constitution or override treaty rights, pointing to limits in existing legislation, including the Referendum Act.

The government’s lawyers said a prior ruling on unilateral secession should be treated as non-binding, with the Secession Reference remaining the governing authority. They also argued the legal challenges are premature and go beyond the narrow administrative decision before the court.

The province argues the Citizen Initiative Act falls within Alberta’s jurisdiction and that recent amendments simply streamline the process.

The government’s lawyers said the First Nations groups have not shown the changes violate the division of powers or infringe on courts’ authority, noting judicial review remains available. They also defended provisions limiting legal action against the Crown as consistent with existing law.

Stay Free Alberta

Jeff Rath, lawyer for Mitch Sylvestre, the head organizer of the Stay Free Alberta petition, argued the referendum process does not engage treaty or constitutional rights at this stage and should be allowed to proceed.

He argued that any potential impact on First Nations’ rights would only arise later if a referendum succeeded and governments entered into constitutional negotiations.

At that point, Rath said, First Nations would be involved through a process under Section 35.1 of the Constitution Act, and courts would retain oversight if governments failed to meet their obligations.

He also pushed back against claims that the courts would be sidelined, saying judicial review would remain available if governments acted unconstitutionally —for example, by failing to consult Indigenous groups during a future constitutional process.

Rath further argued there is no evidence of irreparable harm at the current stage, which involves gathering signatures for a petition.

According to Rath, the process is “purely political,” and does not trigger the duty to consult because it does not involve Crown conduct that impacts treaty rights.

He characterized the applicants’ concerns as speculative, saying they rely on assumptions about what might happen if Alberta were to pursue independence.

Rath also defended recent legislative amendments to the Citizen Initiative Act, arguing the legislature acted within its authority to change the law, including its introduction of provisions that effectively ended a prior court case.

He was critical of the earlier ruling by Feasby, saying it misinterpreted the law and went beyond the issues before the court.

Rath emphasized that the decision itself stated it did not prevent Alberta from holding a referendum on independence, but only found that the previous version of the legislation did not allow citizens to initiate such a vote.

He also rejected arguments that Indigenous groups are not being heard, noting they continue to meet with government officials, including the premier, and can raise concerns through political channels.

Ultimately, Rath urged the court to dismiss the applications, arguing the case is premature and that no legal rights are at stake at the petition stage.

Leonard reserved her decision on Thursday, noting she would consider the submissions and aim to provide a ruling on the request for a stay order soon.