The Power of First Nations Stopping Anti-Treaty Action Dead in its Tracks!

Superior Courts throughout Canada are tools for First Nations power projection, including Treaty and Rights protection, because they have “original inherent jurisdiction,” meaning they can grant First Nations any remedy under the sun or moon that means “just” to them, so long as its consistent with the laws of Canada which includes constitutionally Aboriginal and Treaty rights. Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation v. Alberta (Chief Electoral Officer), 2026 ABKB 375, which stopped dead in its tracks the supposed citizen-led Alberta secession referendum (though it has now been revived directly by the Government of Alberta). The Court of King's Bench of Alberta found:

"The Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation (ACFN) and the Piikani Nation, Siksika Nation and Blood Tribe (Blackfoot Nations) (Blackfoot Nations and ACFN collectively being referred to as the Applicants) each filed Applications for Judicial Review of the decision of the Chief Electoral Officer of Alberta (the CEO) to issue an initiative petition to Mr. Mitch Sylvestre, (the Proponent) under the Citizen Initiative Act, SA 2021, c C-13.2 (the CIA) on January 2, 2026." They are signatories to Treaty 8 in 1899 and Treaty 7 in 1877 respectively.

"The record discloses that the Government of Alberta is committed to honouring Treaty rights. In the context of amendments to the Referendum Act, the Minister of Justice said the following on March 9, 2026:
...Alberta’s government is absolutely committed... to protecting and upholding and honouring the inherent rights of First Nations treaties in this province. Any and every single one of the referendum questions must be constitutional. It says so right in the act. That means that no question can breach the Constitution, and the reality is that we will honour treaties 6, 7, and 8 in this province. This is nonnegotiable."

"I conclude that the CEO Decision triggers a duty to consult. All three elements of the Haida test are satisfied. The Crown has actual knowledge of Treaty rights that are engaged by the Second Proposal. The CEO Decision triggers a binding referendum on secession. Because of the sequence of events that are triggered by the CEO Decision, the CEO Decision constitutes Crown conduct. A requirement to implement secession without prior involvement of the Applicants has the potential to adversely affect Treaty rights. The CEO Decision therefore triggers a duty to consult."

"Following the CEO Decision, the Amended CIA put in motion a series of required steps that engaged the duty to consult with the Applicants. No consultation occurred. Alberta breached its duty to consult with the Applicants."

This relatively brief judgment, rendered ony a month after it was argued, shows the true power held by First Nations using Superior Courts of original inherent jurisdiction throughout Canada to demand the accountability and honour owed by all parties to Crown-Indigenous Treaties. I believe the Courts are only just getting started when it comes to Treaty rights, where much of the earlier litigation of the last several decades has focused on Aboriginal Rights and Title. R. v. Marshall, [1999] 3 SCR 456 should not 27 years later still be the leading Treaty rights case in Canada. I predict a new dawn of the Treaty age, influenced by UNDRIP-driven interpretations.