Category: Constitutional Page 1 of 75

Elections Alberta sets out the ten questions on the 2026 referendum here. The UCP government’s description of the referendum questions is here, and this description labels the questions into three groups: (1) four ‘constitutional questions’; (2) five ‘immigration questions’; and (3) one ‘separation question’. These questions have been the subject of an immense amount of media commentary. CBC News provides a brief overview of each question here and has a dedicated webpage for all its referendum coverage here. Much of the commentary seeks to understand the policy implications of the referendum vote (see e.g., Explaining about all 10 questions on the referendum). One implication is certain: a majority of votes for Option 1 (Alberta should remain a province of Canada) on the ‘separation question’ is binding on this UCP government (and not just while Danielle Smith remains premier, as she suggested in an interview with CBC News here), and should legally preclude any further scratching of the separation itch within the UCP party and the government caucus until after the next general election.

Canada’s Evolving Right to Shelter: Region of Waterloo v Named Respondents & Persons Unknown

By Anna J Lund

On July 10, 2026

In Charter, Constitutional, Human Rights, Uncategorized

By: Anna J. Lund and Sarah Buhler

Case Commented On: The Regional Municipality of Waterloo v Named Respondents and Persons Unknown, 2026 ONSC 2971 (CanLII)

PDF Version: Canada’s Evolving Right to Shelter: Region of Waterloo v Named Respondents & Persons Unknown

On May 21, 2026, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (the Court) released its decision in The Regional Municipality of Waterloo v Named Respondents and Persons Unknown, 2026 ONSC 2971 (CanLII) (the Decision). The Decision considered the constitutionality of a regional government bylaw that sought to remove residents from an encampment. Housing rights advocates are lauding the Decision as a significant step forward in terms of courts recognizing the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (the Charter) as providing legal protections for the rights of unhoused Canadians, as well as its specific reliance on principles from international human rights law. This case comment provides a brief overview of the Decision, highlighting some of the key developments including:

When is a Citizen Initiative Petition a Dead Parrot?

By Nigel Bankes

On May 21, 2026

In Aboriginal, Constitutional, Treaty Rights

By: Nigel Bankes

Decisions Commented On: Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation v Alberta (Chief Electoral Officer), 2026 ABKB 375 (CanLII) and Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation v Alberta (Chief Electoral Officer), 2026 ABKB 278 (CanLII).

PDF Version: When is a Citizen Initiative Petition a Dead Parrot?

In the main decision that is the subject of this post, Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation v Alberta (Chief Electoral Officer), 2026 ABKB 375 (CanLII) (ACFN) Justice Shaina Leonard of the Court of King’s Bench quashed the decision of Alberta’s Chief Electoral Officer (CEO) to issue an initiative petition to Mr. Mitch Sylvestre (the Proponent) under the Citizen Initiative Act, SA 2021, c C-13.2 (the CIA) on January 2, 2026. Sylvestre’s petition was a constitutional referendum proposal within the meaning of the CIA. The petition aimed to gather affirmative signatures for the following question: “Do you agree that the Province of Alberta should cease to be a part of Canada to become an independent state?”

The Minority Report on Electoral Districts: Will the Law Protect Alberta from UCP Gerrymandering?

By Shaun Fluker

On April 13, 2026

In Charter, Constitutional, Election/Voting

By: Shaun Fluker

Report Commented On: Alberta Electoral Boundaries Commission Final Report (March 2026)

PDF Version: The Minority Report on Electoral Districts: Will the Law Protect Alberta from UCP Gerrymandering?

In a representative democracy, an elected representative is chosen by voters in their assigned electoral district. It goes without saying that the integrity of the process used to determine electoral districts is essential to a functional representative democracy. Any whiff of partisan influence on the process will poison the legitimacy of electoral outcomes, raising the spectre that electoral districts were drawn to ensure a particular result on voting day. This is known as “gerrymandering”. Political commentators (see here and here and here) have described the minority report issued by the two UCP-appointed members of the 2025-2026 Alberta Electoral Boundaries Commission as classic gerrymandering. We are not quite there yet because it remains to be seen whether the minority report will be implemented by the UCP government. This post describes the content of the Electoral Boundaries Commission report submitted to the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly on March 23, 2026 (the “Report”) and explores what legal guardrails exist to prevent gerrymandering from infecting Alberta’s democracy.

Back to School Act Survives Injunction Application

By Jennifer Koshan

On March 26, 2026

In Charter, Constitutional, Education, Equality, Injunctions, Labour/Employment, Rule of Law

By: Jennifer Koshan

Case Commented On: Alberta Teachers Association v Alberta (AG), 2026 ABKB 190

PDF Version: Back to School Act Survives Injunction Application

On March 13, 2026, Justice Douglas R. Mah denied the application of the Alberta Teachers Association (ATA) for an interlocutory injunction to suspend operation of the Back to School Act, SA 2025, c B-05 (BSA). Background on this legislation and the Alberta government’s use of the Charter’s notwithstanding clause to override the teachers’ rights to collectively bargain and strike appears in earlier ABlawg posts here and here. This post will discuss Justice Mah’s reasons, including his commentary on the role of judges in a constitutional democracy. This commentary is a sign of the times in Alberta, with the government posing threats to the rule of law and judges feeling compelled to speak out and defend their role. And it is not just the Alberta government seeking to exert more control over the judiciary. On March 24, Alberta was joined by the governments of Saskatchewan, Ontario, and Quebec in calling for a greater say for the provinces in the selection of federally appointed judges. The provinces’ letter to Prime Minister Mark Carney came during a week when the Supreme Court of Canada is hearing what many consider to be the most important constitutional case since the Charter came into effect in 1982, English Montreal School Board, et al v Attorney General of Quebec, et al, 2025 CanLII 2818 (SCC) (EMSB). EMSB involves foundational issues about the powers of judges after a government has invoked the Charter’s notwithstanding clause, section 33. As I will discuss, the EMSB case played a key role in Justice Mah’s decision.

Category: Constitutional Page 1 of 75

2026 Referendum: UCP Grievance Politics and A Binding Vote Against Separation

Canada’s Evolving Right to Shelter: Region of Waterloo v Named Respondents & Persons Unknown

When is a Citizen Initiative Petition a Dead Parrot?

The Minority Report on Electoral Districts: Will the Law Protect Alberta from UCP Gerrymandering?

Back to School Act Survives Injunction Application