Petition signature counting resumes as Alberta separatist group gets partial win at court of appeal, Justice Alice Woolley rules signature verification, report to public can take place by Meghan Grant, CBC News, Jun 29, 2026
An Alberta separatist group has secured a partial win at the province’s top court after a lower court judge quashed its referendum petition last month.
On Monday, Court of Appeal Justice Alice Woolley issued a decision in which she ruled the chief electoral officer can resume verifying signatures on Stay Free Alberta’s referendum petition and reporting the results to the public.
But the judge stopped short of allowing the results to be reported to the justice minister and then referred to the lieutenant governor, which could trigger a constitutional referendum.
“A full stay risks the initiative petition proceeding to a referendum before determination of the appeal,” wrote Woolley.
The group’s application with the court of appeal asked for a stay of Court of King’s Bench Justice Shaina Leonard’s decision so that the process could continue, pending the appeal.
In May, Leonard quashed Stay Free Alberta’s petition which, according to the group, had garnered more than 300,000 signatures.
The petition question reads: “Do you agree that the Province of Alberta should cease to be a part of Canada to become an independent state?”
Province steps in
Leonard found the provincial government neglected its duty to consult First Nations and the chief electoral officer made an error in law in approving the petition.
Both Stay Free Alberta and the provincial government filed an appeal of Leonard’s decision.
Premier Danielle Smith criticized the ruling, calling it “anti-democratic.”
Days later, Smith announced a different question on separation to be included in the province’s Oct. 19 referendum, along with nine other proposals on constitutional and immigration reform.
The question asks Albertans whether they want to remain in Canada or hold a second, binding vote on separation in the future.
‘Political pressure’
But Stay Free Alberta wants its own question to be put to Albertans.
Group leader Mitch Sylvestre has said publicly that the UCP base is angry at the premier’s pro-Canada stance. Smith said that she would advocate for Alberta to stay in Canada in the upcoming referendum.
During the court of appeal hearing earlier this month, Jeffrey Rath, a lawyer for Stay Free Alberta and one of its leaders, argued that should Woolley grant his stay application, it would not guarantee his group’s question would be put to a referendum vote on Oct. 19.
Rath argued if the signatures are verified and reported to the minister, “it would create political pressure for such a question to be asked.”
No expedited hearing
In her decision, Woolley said Rath had demonstrated his group would suffer “‘irreparable harm’ with respect to practical problems that may arise from delaying the verification process.”
The private data of nearly 3 million Alberta voters was fucking stolen and publicly posted, violating the rights of those voters causing irreparable harm to far more than the separatists. To me, that’s fucking much more important than the measly selfish flea bitten traitors that Mitch-lies-a-lot-Sylvestre “says” signed the separatist petition. I do not believe they got the required number of signatures, never mind over 300,000.
Woolley wrote that Stay Free Alberta had not established that it would suffer the same harm from a delay in a referendum on its proposed question, “particularly given Alberta’s decision to conduct a referendum on October 19 exploring voter preferences on the central issue of importance to him, namely, Alberta’s future in Canada.”
A date for the appeal has not been set. Woolley also declined to order an expedited hearing.
She noted that Rath did not indicate he was ready to proceed on an expedited basis and that neither Stay Free Alberta nor the government have taken any court steps beyond filing their notices of appeal.
Judge hears appeal of decision quashing Alberta separatist petition, Court of Appeal Justice Alice Woolley is considering whether to stay last month’s ruling from Court of King’s Bench Justice Shaina Leonard, who quashed a decision to issue a citizen initiative petition on Alberta independence by Jonny Wakefield, Jun 18, 2026, Edmonton Journal
An Alberta judge heard arguments Thursday on an appeal that could once again throw a provincial separation referendum into turmoil.
Court of Appeal Justice Alice Woolley is considering whether to stay last month’s ruling from Court of King’s Bench Justice Shaina Leonard, who quashed a decision to issue a citizen initiative petition on Alberta independence.
Leonard said Alberta’s chief electoral officer did not meet his constitutional duty to consult First Nations about potential treaty breaches before allowing separatist organizers to gather signatures on the question. The Alberta government and the separatist Alberta Prosperity Project appealed, while Premier Danielle Smith opted to move forward with an Oct. 19 referendum on whether Alberta should remain in Canada, or whether a binding separation vote should take place at a later date.
Throughout Thursday’s hearing, Woolley and lawyers for the parties discussed the legal intricacies of Leonard’s decision, as well as what would happen if the Court of Appeal throws out the lower court ruling.
At this stage, Woolley is considering only whether to stay — or legally put on hold — Leonard’s ruling until the broader question of whether the decision should be overturned can be heard by a panel of Court of Appeal judges.
Woolley said she has concerns about some aspects of Leonard’s decision — including the finding that when the chief electoral officer issues a petition under the Citizen Initiative Act, it sets in motion a process that requires the government to implement the results of the referendum.
Separatist lawyer Jeff Rath said the government is under no such obligation and that the petition process only amounts to citizens letting “their wishes be known.”
Thursday’s hearing also dealt with several hypotheticals — such as what would happen if the pro-Canada side wins this fall’s referendum and the Alberta Prosperity Project wins the appeal. Paul Reid, lawyer for the Blood Tribe, told Woolley he believes there would be nothing stopping a second referendum on Alberta separation.
‘Expression of the political will’
Rath, who represents separatist leader Mitch Sylvestre, was granted the most speaking time as the primary appellant. The Government of Alberta lawyer spoke for only a few minutes to answer questions from Woolley, relying instead on written submissions.
Rath said Leonard’s decision is the first time a Canadian court has found governments have a duty to consult First Nations when its comes to hearing from the electorate — “well beyond the realm of decided law in Canada regarding the nature of the duty to consult.”
Rath accused the First Nations of failing to specify what treaty rights they would be infringed by the mere “collection of signatures.” He insisted there is nothing binding about the citizen initiative process, calling it “merely an expression of the political will of a populace which the government may or may not follow.”
Rath argued the 300,000 Albertans separatists he claims signed the petition will suffer “irreparable harm” if Elections Alberta is barred from verifying the petition.
Reid, who represents the Blackfoot Confederacy, said the separatists’ concerns about having their voices heard by government have largely been rendered irrelevant by Smith’s decision to hold a fall referendum — regardless of whether separatists would have preferred a different question.
“The Alberta government has clearly listened to Mr. Sylvestre and his supporters,” he said. “The reality is the question that Alberta has put on the referendum ballot really does to a large degree address the concerns of Mr. Rath and his client — which is ‘we can’t communicate what we want to communicate to the government.’”Smith is the traitors’ sleazy private queen, doing their bidding at every turn, harming all Albertans that are opposed to destroying Canada. It’s so fucking obvious who Smith serves, why the hell can’t “lawyer” Rath see it too?
Reid added that courts have previously found that “administrative inconvenience” — such as collecting signatures for a petition which are never counted — does not amount to irreparable harm.
Woolley said she will deliver her decision in writing at a later date.
“It won’t be long, but it won’t be today,” she told the lawyers.
Refer also to:
I have little trust in Justice Woolley:
