Alberta judge upholds review of proposed separatist referendum question
"It is not plain and obvious that the constitutional referendum proposal is constitutional"
Author of the article:Matthew Black
Published Aug 14, 2025 • Last updated 12 hours ago • 4 minute read
Mitch Sylvestre, CEO of Alberta Prosperity Project displays an image taken during the Holocaust while drawing comparisons between the current economic situation in Alberta and Nazi Germany. Sylvestre spoke at an event hosted by the Alberta Prosperity Project on Tuesday, March 18, 2025, in Strathcona County.
Mitch Sylvestre, CEO of Alberta Prosperity Project displays an image taken during the Holocaust while drawing comparisons between the current economic situation in Alberta and Nazi Germany. Sylvestre spoke at an event hosted by the Alberta Prosperity Project on Tuesday, March 18, 2025, in Strathcona County.
A court will determine the constitutionality of the separatist Alberta Prosperity Project’s (APP) proposed referendum question despite the group’s effort to have that review struck, a judge ruled Thursday.
The APP and its leader Mitch Sylvestre is seeking to ask in a referendum, “Do you agree that the province of Alberta shall become a sovereign country and cease to be a province in Canada?”
Last month, Alberta chief electoral officer Gordon McClure referred the group’s proposed question to the courts for their opinion on if it violates the Constitution.
Last week, APP lawyers argued that referral should be struck, saying it was premature, an abuse of process, and an affront to democracy
On Thursday, Court of King’s Bench Justice Colin Feasby told a Downtown Edmonton courtroom that he was rejecting those arguments, stating the referral “is none of those things.”
“The process under the Citizen Initiative Act fosters the conditions for the clear expression of the will of the population of the province by dispeling the cloud of unconstitutionality that might otherwise hang over a referendum unknown,” he said.
“The referral to the court may result in delay, but it reinforces the legitimacy of the referendum process by ensuring that unconstitutional questions are not put to a vote.”
He added a full hearing was required to determine the constitutionality of the APP’s question, which he described as being not plain and obvious.
“The citizens of Alberta deserve to have these arguments made properly and heard in full; democracy demands nothing less,” he said, noting a potential separation referendum was “serious business.”
“There are legitimate arguments to be made on both sides of the issue before the court.”
Feasby said he would attempt to expedite future hearings on the constitutionality of APP’s proposed question, with preliminary legal filings for individuals or groups seeking to act as interveners to be due next month.
“Interveners will be chosen that represent a broad spectrum of perspectives on the issues before the court,” Feasby’s ruling reads, noting the court was not inviting “every adult citizen in Alberta to intervene.”
Alberta Justice Minister Mickey Amery’s office has previously indicated it plans to make submissions to the court, as have other groups, including the Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation.
“We are Canadians, and we’ve been Canadians ever since our ancestors signed treaty in 1899,” Athabasca Chipewyan Chief Allan Adam told reporters after the ruling.
“We honour that commitment that was signed back in 1899 and this prosperity project that’s coming forward to separate Alberta to become an independent state, is step one to becoming the 51st state of America.”
‘Confederation is doing little for Alberta’
Sylvestre’s lawyer, Jeffrey Rath, said after the hearing that the ruling came as no surprise and that the APP would continue fighting.
“We’re happy to be engaged in the process, and we see this as a real opportunity to continue to talk about the benefits of independence to our fellow Albertans,” he said.
“Confederation is doing little for Alberta, and we’re looking forward to getting this process forward and having Albertans finally have their say on whether or not Alberta should remain part of Canada.”
Premier Danielle Smith and Amery both also publicly opposed McClure’s referral.
Government of Alberta lawyers were in court but took no position on Rath’s application to strike the referral.
Lawyers for Elections Alberta also did not make arguments on the issue of question’s constitutionality.
A spokesperson for Amery’s office said the provincial government supported a sovereign Alberta within a united Canada and reiterated its prior belief the APP’s petition should go ahead.
“Alberta’s government believes that the proposal is not unconstitutional and therefore should be approved and permitted to proceed,” it reads.
“It is settled law that any province is entitled to consult its population by referendum on any issue.”
Opposition justice critic Irfan Sabir accused the provincial government of fuelling separatist sentiment.
“This UCP government has encouraged a separatist referendum that would devastate our province’s economy, hurt investment and make life more expensive,” he said, adding Smith and Amery had “inappropriately interfered” in McClure’s work.
“The premier and this UCP government need to stop pandering to these extremist groups, especially those led by her own party members, who want to destroy our country, and let the Chief Electoral Officer and courts do their job without any political interference.”
Rival petition continues
On July 30, McClure approved a rival petition fronted by former Progressive Conservative deputy premier Thomas Lukaszuk, who is gathering signatures to support his own potential referendum question that asks, “Do you agree that Alberta should remain in Canada?”
Lukaszuk’s petition must meet the much higher bar as set by legislation that was later superseded by current rules that set out reduced thresholds.
“Today was a win, not only for democracy, but for Elections Alberta and its independence and for our First Nations, without a doubt,” he said outside of court after the ruling.
His campaign, which also intends to seek intervenor status, must secure 293,976 signatures within 90 days (Oct. 28), whereas the Sylvestre petition follows the new rules, which would require approximately 177,000 signatures within 120 days.
Provincial legislation requires any referendum question to not violate the Constitution and also bars multiple questions on the same subject.
mblack@postmedia.com
torontosun.com
"It is not plain and obvious that the constitutional referendum proposal is constitutional"
Author of the article:Matthew Black
Published Aug 14, 2025 • Last updated 12 hours ago • 4 minute read
Mitch Sylvestre, CEO of Alberta Prosperity Project displays an image taken during the Holocaust while drawing comparisons between the current economic situation in Alberta and Nazi Germany. Sylvestre spoke at an event hosted by the Alberta Prosperity Project on Tuesday, March 18, 2025, in Strathcona County.
Mitch Sylvestre, CEO of Alberta Prosperity Project displays an image taken during the Holocaust while drawing comparisons between the current economic situation in Alberta and Nazi Germany. Sylvestre spoke at an event hosted by the Alberta Prosperity Project on Tuesday, March 18, 2025, in Strathcona County.
A court will determine the constitutionality of the separatist Alberta Prosperity Project’s (APP) proposed referendum question despite the group’s effort to have that review struck, a judge ruled Thursday.
The APP and its leader Mitch Sylvestre is seeking to ask in a referendum, “Do you agree that the province of Alberta shall become a sovereign country and cease to be a province in Canada?”
Last month, Alberta chief electoral officer Gordon McClure referred the group’s proposed question to the courts for their opinion on if it violates the Constitution.
Last week, APP lawyers argued that referral should be struck, saying it was premature, an abuse of process, and an affront to democracy
On Thursday, Court of King’s Bench Justice Colin Feasby told a Downtown Edmonton courtroom that he was rejecting those arguments, stating the referral “is none of those things.”
“The process under the Citizen Initiative Act fosters the conditions for the clear expression of the will of the population of the province by dispeling the cloud of unconstitutionality that might otherwise hang over a referendum unknown,” he said.
“The referral to the court may result in delay, but it reinforces the legitimacy of the referendum process by ensuring that unconstitutional questions are not put to a vote.”
He added a full hearing was required to determine the constitutionality of the APP’s question, which he described as being not plain and obvious.
“The citizens of Alberta deserve to have these arguments made properly and heard in full; democracy demands nothing less,” he said, noting a potential separation referendum was “serious business.”
“There are legitimate arguments to be made on both sides of the issue before the court.”
Feasby said he would attempt to expedite future hearings on the constitutionality of APP’s proposed question, with preliminary legal filings for individuals or groups seeking to act as interveners to be due next month.
“Interveners will be chosen that represent a broad spectrum of perspectives on the issues before the court,” Feasby’s ruling reads, noting the court was not inviting “every adult citizen in Alberta to intervene.”
Alberta Justice Minister Mickey Amery’s office has previously indicated it plans to make submissions to the court, as have other groups, including the Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation.
“We are Canadians, and we’ve been Canadians ever since our ancestors signed treaty in 1899,” Athabasca Chipewyan Chief Allan Adam told reporters after the ruling.
“We honour that commitment that was signed back in 1899 and this prosperity project that’s coming forward to separate Alberta to become an independent state, is step one to becoming the 51st state of America.”
‘Confederation is doing little for Alberta’
Sylvestre’s lawyer, Jeffrey Rath, said after the hearing that the ruling came as no surprise and that the APP would continue fighting.
“We’re happy to be engaged in the process, and we see this as a real opportunity to continue to talk about the benefits of independence to our fellow Albertans,” he said.
“Confederation is doing little for Alberta, and we’re looking forward to getting this process forward and having Albertans finally have their say on whether or not Alberta should remain part of Canada.”
Premier Danielle Smith and Amery both also publicly opposed McClure’s referral.
Government of Alberta lawyers were in court but took no position on Rath’s application to strike the referral.
Lawyers for Elections Alberta also did not make arguments on the issue of question’s constitutionality.
A spokesperson for Amery’s office said the provincial government supported a sovereign Alberta within a united Canada and reiterated its prior belief the APP’s petition should go ahead.
“Alberta’s government believes that the proposal is not unconstitutional and therefore should be approved and permitted to proceed,” it reads.
“It is settled law that any province is entitled to consult its population by referendum on any issue.”
Opposition justice critic Irfan Sabir accused the provincial government of fuelling separatist sentiment.
“This UCP government has encouraged a separatist referendum that would devastate our province’s economy, hurt investment and make life more expensive,” he said, adding Smith and Amery had “inappropriately interfered” in McClure’s work.
“The premier and this UCP government need to stop pandering to these extremist groups, especially those led by her own party members, who want to destroy our country, and let the Chief Electoral Officer and courts do their job without any political interference.”
Rival petition continues
On July 30, McClure approved a rival petition fronted by former Progressive Conservative deputy premier Thomas Lukaszuk, who is gathering signatures to support his own potential referendum question that asks, “Do you agree that Alberta should remain in Canada?”
Lukaszuk’s petition must meet the much higher bar as set by legislation that was later superseded by current rules that set out reduced thresholds.
“Today was a win, not only for democracy, but for Elections Alberta and its independence and for our First Nations, without a doubt,” he said outside of court after the ruling.
His campaign, which also intends to seek intervenor status, must secure 293,976 signatures within 90 days (Oct. 28), whereas the Sylvestre petition follows the new rules, which would require approximately 177,000 signatures within 120 days.
Provincial legislation requires any referendum question to not violate the Constitution and also bars multiple questions on the same subject.
mblack@postmedia.com
Alberta judge upholds review of proposed separatist referendum question
Alberta's chief electoral officer referred a separatist group's proposed referendum question to the court to gauge its constitutionality.
