In a pivotal moment for Alberta’s future, the Court of King’s Bench has issued a decision in the case of Chief Electoral Officer v. Sylvestre, addressing the Alberta Prosperity Project’s (APP) petition for a referendum on Alberta independence. While the ruling struck down the original petition question under the now-repealed sections of the Citizen Initiative Act, it has unexpectedly handed us a clear blueprint for moving forward. Far from a setback, this decision—combined with the timely passage of Bill 14—positions Alberta closer than ever to a democratic vote on our sovereignty. As we gear up for petition signatures in January, now is the time for Albertans to unite, educate, and act. Your support through donations to the APP will fuel this grassroots movement toward prosperity and self-determination.
Understanding the Court Decision: A Double-Edged Sword Turned Opportunity
The court’s conclusion, outlined in paragraphs 243-249 of the decision, delves into the constitutional implications of Alberta independence. It states:
“[243] The structure of the CIA required me to take Alberta independence as a fact and to consider if that contravened Constitution Act, 1982 ss 1-35.1. This is artificial because, of course, Alberta independence as a legal matter may be accomplished only through the amendment process set out in Constitution Act, 1982. Since taking Alberta independence as a fact has the same effect as unilateral secession considered in the Secession Reference, the outcome of this case should not be a surprise to anyone. The Secession Reference held that unilateral secession was unconstitutional, though for different reasons than considered in the present case.
[244] The Referendum Proponent’s constitutional referendum proposal contravenes Constitution Act, 1982 ss 1-35.1 because independence would require the replacement of the Canadian constitution, including the identified sections, with a new Alberta constitution. Constitution Act, 1982 guarantees the rights in the Charter. What will replace Charter rights in an independent Alberta cannot be known, so if Alberta were to become independent it could not be said that Charter rights are guaranteed in the sense provided for in Constitution Act, 1982 s 1. To find, as this decision has found, that the constitutional referendum proposal contravenes Constitution Act, 1982 because it does not guarantee the rights specified therein does not mean that a constitution for an independent Alberta would be inferior to the Constitution Act, 1982, only that it would be different.
[245] Treaty rights are ‘recognized and affirmed,’ not ‘guaranteed’ and they are incorporated by reference, not specified. These are distinctions without a difference. Perhaps an independent Alberta would adopt a provision like Constitution Act, 1982 s 35 and recognize and affirm Treaty rights but, for the reasons explained above, Alberta cannot succeed to the Numbered Treaties without the consent of First Nations. Moreover, this decision has concluded that the transformation of provincial and territorial borders into international borders would contravene the Numbered Treaties by significantly impairing the exercise of Treaty rights by First Nations.
[246] The Referendum Proponent suggests that it is unjust for First Nations to have a veto over whether Alberta becomes independent. He argues: [T]he position of the First Nations Intervenors is that a proposal can never be brought forth to gauge the democratic sentiment of fellow citizens regarding independence by any citizen, or even the Government of Alberta, because of aboriginal or treaty rights. It is an inherently political argument… Such a proposition amounts to an asserted veto over citizen-led initiatives or any independence referendum. [Emphasis added].
[247] This case has not decided that First Nations have a veto over Alberta independence nor has it considered whether or at what stage of the referendum process Alberta might have a duty to consult with First Nations. Treaty rights would be contravened by Alberta independence, whether such contraventions might be justified has not been considered because that is not required by CIA s 2(4). Further, as both the Secession Reference and Clarity Act contemplate, following a vote in favour of independence, there would be a process of negotiation between Canada and the provinces where First Nations would have a seat at the table. The strength of the various parties’ bargaining positions, including the question of whether First Nations have something like a veto, was beyond the scope of the questions before the Court and cannot be assessed at this time.
[248] Regardless of the undecided legal questions of whether contraventions of Treaty rights may be justified or if First Nations hold a veto over Alberta independence, there can be no reasonable objection to First Nations having an important voice in any discussion of Alberta independence. First Nations’ consent to non-Indigenous settlement in what is now Alberta, memorialized in the Numbered Treaties, led to the creation of Alberta and continues to confer legitimacy on Alberta. First Nations, as founding partners in the creation of Alberta, cannot be ignored or bypassed as Alberta contemplates its future whether that is as part of Canada or not.
[249] Nothing in this decision should be understood to mean that the constitution cannot be amended or that Alberta cannot hold a referendum on separation. This decision only stands for the proposition that Alberta in the CIA did not give citizens the power to initiate a referendum on the question of independence from Canada.”
This ruling highlights the complexities of secession, emphasizing that unilateral independence would contravene Charter and Treaty rights without proper negotiation. However, it explicitly notes that the constitution can be amended and that Alberta can hold a referendum on separation. Importantly, it underscores the need for inclusive processes, including First Nations’ involvement, which aligns with our commitment to fair and respectful dialogue.
Expert Insights: A Roadmap to Success
APP Constitutional Lawyer Jeffrey Rath provided this response to the decision, viewing it as a positive step forward:
“We were not particularly surprised by the court decision today. The Citizens’ Iniative Act was drafted by the Kenney government and was not very well drafted nor were the amendments put forward by the Smith government very well thought out. Bill 14 will fix some of the problems, but we urge the Smith government to read Justice Feasby’s decision and make the required adjustments including moving the references to Sections 1 to 35.1 in the Constitution Act to the Referendum Act.
Justice Feasby has provided us a road map to an independence referendum. I am pleased that both the conclusion of the court proceeding and Bill 14 will allow Mitch Sylvestre and Albertans for a Free and Independent Alberta to start gathering petition signatures in January.”
"We were not particularly surprised by the court decision today. The Citizens’ Iniative Act was drafted by the Kenney government and was not very well drafted nor were the amendments put forward by the Smith government very well thought out. Bill 14 will fix some of the problems,… pic.twitter.com/OphMjNLljC
— Alberta Prosperity Project (@ABProsperityPrj) December 5, 2025
Rath’s analysis reinforces that the decision isn’t a barrier but a guide, especially with Bill 14 addressing the legislative flaws.
Fellow constitutional lawyer Keith Wilson, K.C., echoes this optimism in his recent post:
“Today’s court ruling has no negative impact on Alberta’s path to independence. It does not limit the Alberta government’s authority to call an independence referendum. The decision only addressed defective wording in the Citizen Initiative Act—an issue the government has already fixed with Bill 14.”
Wilson has launched a YouTube channel to demystify these developments—check out his first video, “Alberta’s Path to Independence: Bill 14 and the October 2026 Referendum (Lawyer Explains),” where he breaks down how Bill 14 removes court interference, paving the way for the APP to refile the petition and collect 177,000 signatures starting early next year. He highlights the economic upside: lower taxes, unrestricted resource development free from federal burdens like Bill C-69 and carbon taxes, sensible immigration control, and prosperity akin to oil-rich nations. As Wilson states, “Democracy is alive and well in Alberta,” but it requires public engagement to succeed.
Journalist and independence advocate Jason Lavigne describes the ruling as a “complete nothing burger” in his detailed breakdown: “The ruling is now entirely moot… because the law that gave the Court authority to make this decision was repealed yesterday.” Lavigne points out that Bill 14 eliminated the contravention test under sections 2(3), 2(4), and 2.1 of the Citizen Initiative Act, rendering the court’s jurisdiction obsolete. This means the path is clear—no more judicial hurdles for citizen-led initiatives.
🚨BREAKING NEWS: Court Strikes Down Alberta Independence Petition, But the Ruling Is Now a Complete NOTHING BURGER🚨
— Jason Lavigne (@JasonLavigneAB) December 5, 2025
In a dramatic twist of timing, the Alberta Court of King’s Bench released its long-awaited decision today in Chief Electoral Officer v. Sylvestre, ruling against… pic.twitter.com/x1CLKKYjfD
The Momentum Builds: From Petition to Referendum
With over 200,000 pledges already secured, the APP is poised to launch signature collection in January, aiming for a referendum as early as October 2026. This isn’t just about separation; it’s about reclaiming control over our resources, economy, and future. Independence would eliminate federal overreach, allowing Alberta to thrive with policies tailored to our strengths—boosting jobs in energy, agriculture, and innovation while slashing taxes and red tape.
But we can’t do this alone. The federalists in Ottawa will fight tooth and nail to keep Alberta as their cash cow. That’s why open conversations with friends, family, and neighbors are crucial, as Wilson urges in his video.
Join the Movement: Donate Today
The Alberta Prosperity Project is a non-profit, non-partisan organization dedicated to educating Albertans on the merits of sovereignty. Your donations fund petition drives, legal expertise, public awareness campaigns, and resources like expert analyses and videos. Every contribution brings us closer to a free and prosperous Alberta.
Donate now at https://nb.albertaprosperity.com and be part of history. Whether it’s $10, $50, or more, your support ensures we can gather signatures, counter misinformation, and secure a referendum vote. Together, we can build an Alberta that puts its people first.
Alberta’s future is in our hands—let’s seize it.
Come On. Let’s Go.