Premier Danielle Smith has criticized a recent court decision regarding a separatist petition as undemocratic, but a closer examination reveals that the ruling actually reinforces democratic principles. The case, Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation v. Chief Electoral Officer of Alberta, was decided by Justice Shaina Leonard of the Court of King's Bench. We disagree with the Premier's characterization.
Understanding Constitutional Democracy
Canada operates as a constitutional democracy, meaning that the Constitution provides the fundamental legal framework for governance. Parliament and provincial legislatures create laws, but these laws must adhere to constitutional requirements. Judges are tasked with interpreting and applying both the Constitution and legislation passed by elected representatives. This system ensures that governmental power is not absolute; if actions violate the Constitution, courts have the duty to intervene. Nations lacking such checks and balances are considered autocracies or dictatorships.
The Supreme Court's Stance
The Supreme Court of Canada clearly articulated this principle in Vriend v. Alberta: “Quite simply, it is not the courts which limit the legislatures. Rather, it is the Constitution, which must be interpreted by the courts, that limits the legislatures.” Citizens have the right to challenge laws they believe exceed legislative authority, and courts must rule on such challenges as part of their constitutional duty.
The Athabasca Case
In this case, Justice Leonard was asked to determine whether the Chief Electoral Officer erred by approving a petition on December 22, 2025, that called for Alberta's separation from Canada, after rejecting a substantially similar petition just two weeks earlier. The decision required interpreting the Citizen Initiative Act—passed by the Alberta legislature—and Section 35 of the Constitution, which was patriated in 1982 with approval from both the federal Parliament and the Alberta legislature.
Key Findings
- The petition's proposal contravened Indigenous and treaty rights protected under Section 35 of the Constitution.
- Alberta failed to fulfill its duty to consult with First Nations.
- At the time of the initial rejection, the Citizen Initiative Act prohibited petitions that violated Section 35. Once rejected, the petition could not be revived under subsequent amendments.
Justice Leonard's ruling quashed the Chief Electoral Officer's approval because it did not comply with the requirements established by the Alberta legislature in the Citizen Initiative Act or with constitutional mandates. In doing so, she performed the essential judicial function of interpreting and applying the law. Far from being undemocratic, this decision upholds the rule of law and the constitutional framework that protects all Canadians' rights.
