A recent ruling by Alberta King’s Bench Justice Colin Feasby has sparked discussions about a proposed referendum on Alberta's potential separation from Canada. This decision marks the beginning of what is expected to be a lengthy and complex legal battle.

A group of individuals in Alberta is advocating for a referendum that would ask voters, "Do you agree that the Province of Alberta shall become a sovereign country and cease to be a province in Canada?" The push for this referendum is part of a broader movement among some Albertans who either want the province to separate from Canada or use the threat of separation to strengthen Alberta's negotiating power within the Canadian federation.

Alberta's citizen-initiative legislation allows voters to propose and petition for referendum questions. However, the law, recently updated by Premier Danielle Smith's government, stipulates that any proposed question must not "contravene" the Charter of Rights or the Aboriginal rights provisions of the Constitution Act of 1982. The interpretation of what constitutes a contravention is vague and has not been tested in court.

The province's chief electoral officer is tasked with determining whether a proposed question is constitutionally valid. If deemed necessary, the officer can refer the question to the Alberta King’s Bench for further review. In this case, the chief electoral officer opted to send a reference question to Justice Feasby, who is known for his legal acumen.

The separatists opposed this reference, arguing that it infringed on the will of the people. They claimed that the chief electoral officer's actions were an unnecessary interference. However, the chief electoral officer did not contest the separatists' motion, and Alberta's attorney general remained neutral, leaving the judge without the usual adversarial context of a court hearing.

During the proceedings, the separatist legal team, including Jeffrey Rath and Eva Chipiuk, presented their arguments but faced challenges. Their claims included a convoluted assertion that their referendum question would not be binding on the government, which contradicts the explicit language of the Alberta Referendum Act that states such questions are indeed binding.

Justice Feasby noted the lack of clarity in the separatists' arguments, particularly highlighting their need to amend their pleadings during the hearing due to inconsistencies. He also pointed out their apparent unfamiliarity with established case law regarding referendums and the Charter of Rights.

As the case progresses, it remains to be seen how the court will interpret the legal complexities surrounding the proposed referendum and the implications for Alberta's political landscape.