Eric Goodfellow:
So… a criminal wants to join a country run by a criminal. Well that fits.
@sherryeff.bsky.social:
Temu Boss Hogg is a dirty little pig, ripping off Indigenous bands.
He knows Alberta can’t just decide to become US because of Indigenous sovereignty and treaty rights.
But he also knows he can spend the rest of his career making a ton of money over it
@1carolynt.bsky.social:
So #jeffreyrath is a #collaborator for the USA – I would think he should happily move there and pay for his healthcare etc
David Mulroney:
This guy tried to take advantage of a first nations claim on Canada and charge an oversized and outrageous fee. Rejected by alberta court of appeal. Doesnt seem like a person any rational person would follow
Dwayne Wladyka:
This guy is off the deep end. Alberta can’t separate, and Alberta can’t join the United States.
Ken Walker:
Denial will appoint him to special counsel. LOL
Amanda Mccord:
He should go if Montana wants him. He and Kevin Oleary can start their own compound.
Al Davidson:
There has to be something in the water in southern Alberta . These mental abnormalities should be studied.
Or it’s the brain eating sour gas (lots in the foothills) and diesel fumes in the air, and good old ugly selfish stupid arrogant white privileged Repuglican Alberta-ness
[Kenney] calls Rath ‘treasonous kook’ as he advocates for Alberta as 51st state by Jen Hodgson, Mar 7, 2025, Western Standard
Calgary lawyer Jeffrey Rath, Former Alberta Premier Jason Kenny
Former Alberta Premier Jason Kenny took to social media Thursday night to protest attempts made by a group of Albertans for the province to join the US as its 51st state.
Calgary lawyer Jeffrey Rath announced this week he is leading a delegation of Albertans, including representatives of the Alberta Prosperity Project and at least one unnamed former MP, to meet with contacts in Washington on what he told the Western Standard is a “fact-finding mission.”
Rath and the group of Albertans are planning a delegation to Washington to gauge support for Alberta obtaining statehood, or becoming a territory or 51st American state.
Alberta lawyer leading delegation to Washington in hopes of joining US
Kenny did not take well to the idea. He re-posted a video of Rath talking to Fox News about the delegation and included an old link to a 2017 CBC article where the lawyer accused him of running for the United Conservative Party leadership (UCP) “to destroy the party.”
“This treasonous kook once sued me to prevent Alberta’s conservative parties from merging democratically,” wrote Kenny Thursday night, referring to his campaign promise to merge the UCP with the Wild Rose Party.
“He’s just a blow hard desperate for media attention,” said Kenny.
WATCH: Alberta as 51st state advocate appears on Fox News
Rath at the time attempted to get Kenny disqualified from the leadership race, saying he repeatedly violated contest rules. The UCP in 2016 fined Kenny $5,000 for breaking the rules and appearing at an event he wasn’t allowed to attend as a candidate.
“He’s not running to be the leader of the Progressive Conservative party. He’s running to destroy the party so that he can then form a new party that he’s going to run and become leader of,” said Rath at the time, per the CBC.
“Obviously from my perspective — being very familiar with the constitution of the party as well as the leadership rules — that clearly offends the … constitution of the party and the leadership rules.”
Alberta lawyer touting ’51st state’ support facing law society citation for allegedly threatening criminal charges ‘to gain a benefit for a client’ by Jonny Wakefield, Mar 07, 2025
156 Comments
An Alberta lawyer who appeared on Fox News to discuss the province joining the United States is facing professional misconduct allegations in a separate case, with claims he “threatened criminal charges, including for murder, in an attempt to gain a benefit for a client.”
Jeffrey Rath, a Foothills-based lawyer specializing in treaty and Indigenous rights and environmental law, said in an interview with Fox & Friends Thursday he plans to lead a “delegation” to Washington, D.C., to seek a meeting with Trump administration officials to discuss statehood for Alberta.
Rath said “hundreds” of Albertans have reached out about joining the group, and they are interested in discussions “to explore the benefits of either Alberta becoming an independent sovereign nation with economic union to the United States, becoming a U.S. territory, or pursuing full statehood.”
Rath cited the carbon tax and equalization as justification for the move and claimed Albertans have more in common with states like Montana than Eastern Canada.
Fox billed Rath as an Alberta lawyer in both its headlines and onscreen chyrons.
According to his publicly accessible Law Society of Alberta page, Rath is facing seven citations for alleged unprofessional conduct. The citations have not been proven and a disciplinary hearing has not been scheduled.
In a phone call with Postmedia following his Fox appearance, Rath denied the allegations.
“They’re all in the process of being resolved, and especially the most explosive one — the one alleging that I would actually be stupid enough to threaten murder charges to resolve a civil dispute — is factually incorrect, and that is not what happened, period, full stop,” he said.
Five of the citations are dated Oct. 22, 2024. In addition to the claim he threatened criminal charges, the citations allege Rath:
- “Sent correspondence and communicated in a manner that was discourteous, offensive or otherwise inconsistent with the proper tone of professional communication from a lawyer”
- “Took steps in the representation of a client that were clearly without merit”
- “Unreasonably delayed the process of a tribunal”
- “Sent correspondence directly to an opposing party when he knew or ought to have known that person was represented by a lawyer”
Rath is also facing two citations dated June 18, 2024. One claims he “failed to be candid” with the federal court and Crown counsel by “misrepresenting” at a case management conference that he was still counsel for a client who terminated his services and told him to transfer the file to another lawyer.
Rath is also alleged to have “failed to co-operate with a successor lawyer and delayed the transfer of a file following being discharged by his client.”
All the citations state the alleged conduct is “deserving of sanction.”
Law society spokesperson Colleen Brown said she could not provide additional information about the citations. Rath’s Law Society of Alberta page, which goes back to 2015, shows no disciplinary record.
Describing the complaints process generally, Brown said: “When the conduct of lawyers is brought to the law society’s attention, each matter is reviewed according to a process that is fair, transparent and consistent for both the lawyer involved and those providing the information.”
“Most of the complaints reviewed by the conduct department are dismissed or resolved without a hearing,” she said. “The conduct committee determines which matters go to hearing.”
The Law Society of Alberta’s hearings page lists three separate upcoming hearings for Rath on the allegations, though no dates have been set, and Rath said he does expect the hearings to occur. Brown confirmed there are three separate proceedings “at this time,” but the hearing tribunal is “not positive that it will proceed that way.”
‘No enthusiasm’ for statehood: Smith
January polling by Angus Reid shows 90 per cent of Canadians oppose the idea of joining the United States. Alberta showed the strongest levels of pro-51st state support, with 18 per cent backing secession.
Postmedia contacted Premier Danielle Smith’s office about Rath’s Fox appearance and was referred to her earlier comments about a billboard advocating that Alberta join the United States.
“I see no enthusiasm for that notion,” Smith said last month. “What I have seen is the opposite. I have seen so many Canadians and Albertans in particular reaching out and saying we’ve got to put Canada first, we’ve got to tear down interprovincial trade barriers, we’ve got to find new markets, we’ve got to support each other in building new pipeline infrastructure.
“So I don’t think there’s a lot of enthusiasm for what the billboard says or what the president has been talking about.”
email hidden; JavaScript is required
Canada’s highest court refuses to hear appeal on many millions of dollars charged by Alberta law firm to First Nation by Shari Narine, March 20th, Windspeaker.com
The Supreme Court of Canada will not be hearing an appeal from Rath & Company and Jeffrey R. W. Raththat the law firm is owed more than $3 million as a contingency fee from work it undertook when Tallcree First Nation received agricultural benefits in 2017 under Canada’s Specific Claims process.
The Priddis-based Alberta law firm signed an agreement with Tallcree First Nation in 2015 that set a contingency fee of no less than 20 per cent received in a settlement agreement.
Tallcree First Nation, one of approximately 20 Treaty 8 First Nations at the time negotiating an agreement with Canada, received $57.6 million based on a formula that took into account the number of band members. The settlement was consistent with offers made to other signatories of Treaty 8.
Under the agreement with Rath & Company, the contingency fee would therefore be $11.5 million, but Tallcree put up a fight.
Tallcree sought a review of the fee. The review officer upheld Rath & Company’s fee.
Tallcree appealed the decision to the Court of Queen’s Bench in Alberta and the judge ruled that the fee was unreasonable and reduced it to $3 million, “inclusive of disbursements.”
Rath appealed that decision to the Court of Appeal of Alberta.
In a split decision of two to one, the higher court upheld the lower court’s $3 million contingency fee. However, the appeal court found the lower court’s conclusion was “tainted” and therefore conducted a new analysis to determine what constituted a reasonable fee.
Among the errors the appeal court majority said the lower court judge made was in the “hindsight analysis.” The lower court found that Rath could have predicted that the upcoming federal election (of 2015) would result in a government change with a new government that would be more amenable to Indigenous peoples.
The appeal court also took issue with the lower court’s conclusion that Tallcree First Nation was under economic pressure to enter into the contingency fee agreement with Rath because of impecuniosity (poverty). The appeal court said the argument wasn’t sustained by a financial statement from Tallcree.
And the appeal court found error in the conclusion that Rath & Company, because it was located in a small community, did not have the expertise to handle First Nations’ law.
“Since both the Review Officer’s and the chambers judge’s analyses of the reasonableness of the contingency fee agreement were tainted by reviewable error, it is necessary for this court to conduct a fresh analysis,” wrote Justices Frans Slatter and Kevin Feehan in their 2022 majority decision.
At the time Tallcree signed with Rath, Tallcree felt that their claim was lagging – their smaller claim was being piggybacked on the larger claims – and that their present law firm was not sharing information with them. In light of this dissatisfaction, the First Nation signed with Rath to expedite the process.
Tallcree’s business manager had not been briefed about the mandatory statutory timetable for resolving specific claims.
The Treaty 8 claimants had triggered the Specific Claims procedure, which had a specific timeline in place: three years from filing to acceptance for negotiation and a further three years to negotiate settlement. It was expected a per capita formula for the settlements would be put in place.
Tallcree’s claim was accepted as “filed” by Canada in 2013, setting 2016 as the end of the research and assessment period.
Canada had already accepted other claims for negotiation so it was highly unlikely that Tallcree’s claim would not be accepted.
The contingency fee agreement with Rath was signed 26 months into the 36-month assessment period.
Since a number of claims had already been accepted for negotiations, “the reasonable observer” would not have considered liability seriously contested, would have perceived a settlement in the near future, and would expect Tallcree to receive an offer, held the court of appeal majority opinion.
“The 20 per cent contingency would likely be triggered with minimal additional effort or risk. Given the range of settlement being discussed, the resulting fee would clearly be unreasonable…,” said the majority decision.
Rath estimated the hourly rate for work undertaken for Tallcree at $391,900. Rath had conceded before the lower court judge that a fee between $1 million and $2 million would be appropriate. The judge set $3 million as the contingency fee.
The appeal court majority said although the $3 million fee was “based on unsupportable analysis,” Tallcree had not filed a cross appeal, so the $3 million fee stood.
Dissenting Justice Thomas A. Wakeling held that Tallcree First Nation had entered into the contingency fee agreement with Rath & Company “with its eyes wide open” and understood its obligations.
The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed Rath’s leave to appeal on March 16, 2023. The Supreme Court does not provide reasons for leave application judgments.
***