Elections Alberta affirmed that it received the petition, “A Referendum Relating to Alberta Independence,” and signature sheets from a “pro-sovereignty” group, Stay Free Alberta. The group told the CBC News that it has collected over 301,000 signatures, significantly more than the 178,000 threshold. The proposed referendum will ask voters: “Do you agree that the Province of Alberta should cease to be a part of Canada to become an independent state?”

On April 10, Justice Shaina Leonard of the Alberta Court of King’s Bench granted a temporary stay, barring the Chief Electoral Officer Gordon McClure from verifying the petition. She accepted that the lack of consultation could cause irreparable harm to First Nations, including Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation, Piikani Nation, Siksika Nation and Blood Tribe. The First Nations welcomed the decision. Following the stay, the verification cannot take place until the court completes the judicial review.

There are other doubts on the legality of the petition. On Dec. 6, 2025, the same court heldthat the referendum proposal is unconstitutional. Justice Colin Feasby found that the proposal does not guarantee Charter rights or Aboriginal and Treaty rights to the same extent as the provided by Constitution Act, 1982. However, an amendment to the Citizen Initiative Act (CIA) came into effect on Dec. 11. It removes the provision requiring a referendum proposal to be compatible with the aforementioned rights. A “transitional provision” also ensures that the amendment applies to the referendum proposal, which predated the amendment. In granting the stay, Leonard agreed that the constitutionality of the CIA amendment and the potential applicability of the previous ruling are serious questions to be adjudicated.

Meanwhile, pro-unity group Forever Canadian claimed that it had already received over 404,000 signatures in support of the province remaining in Canada.

In related news, Elections Alberta is investigating a breach of the provincial voter list. On April 30, the authority revealed that the Republican Party of Alberta provided the voter list to a pro-sovereignty Centurion Project Ltd., which then publicized the list. While the provincial Election Act allows political parties to access the list, it strictly forbids distributing the list to a third party.

McClure said the authority was unable to investigate sooner because the recent Election Statutes Amendment Act, 2025, heightened the threshold for for opening an investigation from “grounds to warrant” to “reasonable grounds.” Similarly, the provincial privacy commissioner Diane McLeod said Alberta’s Personal Information Protection Act does not regulate political parties. They both called for reforms to their empowering statutes to strengthen accountability.

From JURIST, May 7. Used with permission.

Note: Prime Minister Mark Carney has admonished the US not to interfere in the Alberta independence drive, telling reporters in January: “We expect the US administration to respect Canadian sovereignty.” This comes in response to reports that leaders of the separatist Alberta Prosperity Project met with Trump administration officials. British Columbia Premier David Eby also sharply criticized the meetings, saying they amounted to “treason.” Carney and Eby were also responding to an aggressive online campaign—including AI-produced “slopaganda”—in support of Alberta becoming the “51st state.” However, while much of this propaganda comes from the US, reports indicate that some of it is being produced in Russia as well. (Politico, El Pais, NBC, The Hill, CBC, CBC)

See our last report on the struggle in Alberta, and our podcast, “MAGA-fascism and the struggle in Canada”

Photo: Magalie L’Abbe via Alberta Politics

At issue in the appeal was whether Chief Dsta’hyl could make a defense on the ground that he was acting in accordance with a co-existing Indigenous legal order. Chief Justice Leonard Merchand, writing for the three-judge panel, held that the court would recognize the defense if violating a court injunction was a last resort. However, as the defendant could have challenged the injunction, the court found that violating the injunction was not necessary to uphold the Wet’suwet’en law of trespass.

In his concluding remark, Chief Justice Merchand wrote:

Indigenous law has been denied, supressed [sic], and at times outlawed, for over a century in Canada. Canadian law has a role to play in undoing that harm and is learning to make space for Indigenous legal orders in various ways. But that work does not include allowing parties, Indigenous or non-Indigenous, to breach court orders.

In 2019, the British Columbia Supreme Court issued an injunction banning protests in the construction area of the Coastal GasLink pipeline project. Defying the injunction, Chief Dsta’hyl organized a blockade in an attempt to halt the construction in 2021. At trial, he contended that the protests were necessary to uphold the traditional Wet’suwet’en law of trespass and fulfill his duties as a chief to preserve and protect their yintah (territory). The trial judge rejected the defense, holding that it was an impermissible “collateral attack” on the injunction.

When the trial judge found Chief Dsta’hyl guilty of contempt, Amnesty International declaredhim Canada’s first prisoner of conscience. The group contended that the 60 days of house arrest were an unjustified criminal penalty for his work to protect Indigenous rights and the environment. In 2023, the group also published a report, accusing the Royal Canadian Mounted Police of conducting arbitrary arrests, harassment, intimidation and unlawful surveillance of the Wet’suwet’en and their allies that were incompatible with the right to freedom of peaceful assembly.

Nationwide protests erupted in 2020 against the pipeline project. While Coastal Gaslink claimed that it had reached agreements with 20 elected First Nation councils, the Wet’suwet’en maintained that the Hereditary Chiefs who retained authority in the region had not agreed to the construction. According to Indigenous lawyers Kate Gunn and Bruce McIvor, the elected band councils only had the decision-making authority on reserve lands under the federal Indian Act. The project, also situated in the traditional unceded territories of the Wet’suwet’en beyond the reserve lands, was said to have violated the right to free, prior and informed consent of the Wet’suwet’en.

From JURIST, April 30. Used with permission. Internal links added.

See our last report on the Indigenous struggle in British Columbia.

Image: Front Line Defenders

This is the third court dispute between provincial government and the MNS, the self-governing body for Métis in Saskachewan. All three disputes concern Aboriginal rights and the duty to consult. The two parties’ litigation history prompted the “abuse of process” allegation from the Saskatchewan government.

The Saskatchewan government argued that two prior ongoing proceedings from 1994 and 2020 dealt with the same legal issue—the duty to consult. The government’s position was that duplicative proceedings would “waste resources, risk inconsistent results, and bring the administration of justice into disrepute.”

Justice Suzanne Rowe, writing for a unanimous court, rejected the government’s arguments. He found that the 1994 action, which has been on hold, “is not dispositive” of the issue in the current case. He also determined that while the 2020 and 2021 proceedings do have clear overlap, they each raise different issues about the government’s duty to consult and as such, were not duplicative.

Prior to this 2021 proceeding, the MNS asserted Aboriginal title and rights in 1994 and 2020 against the Saskatchewan government. The 1994 dispute was stayed in 2005 due to the MNS’s failure to produce court-ordered documents. The 2020 dispute is ongoing with a decision pending. All three deal with the Saskatchewan government’s duty to consult with the MNS.

In Canada, the duty to consult is an obligation placed on federal and provincial governments. It requires the Crown to consult with Indigenous groups when the Crown is contemplating conduct that may adversely affect the potential existing Aboriginal rights or titles that the government is aware of. In this case, the conduct in question is the approval of mining permits.

This duty is rooted in the honor of the Crown, elaborated in the landmark case, Haida Nation v British Columbia (Minister of Forests) which reiterated that the government must act honorably in all its dealings with Indigenous peoples including good faith attempts at addressing Indigenous concerns through consultation.

Additionally, Canada ratified the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) into Canadian law in 2021. This requires Canadian governments to “take all measures necessary to ensure the laws of Canada are consistent with UNDRIP.” The ratifying legislation also affirmed the government’s duty to consult with Indigenous peoples on questions affecting their territories.

From JURIST, Feb. 28. Used with permission.

Image: MNS

The 133-page report determined that the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) permitted the lithium mine without the FPIC of the Numu, Nuwu and Newe peoples. In the 2021 BLM decision to approve the mining project, the agency stated it had been contact with tribal governments since 2018 and that “[n]o comments or concerns have been raised during formal government to government consultation for the project by the tribes.” HRW’s report challenges that assertion, claiming there was no meaningful consultation, and that US courts have rebuffed all efforts by affected indigenous peoples to challenge the adequacy of the consultation process. The extent of the consultation, HRW alleges, was just three rounds of mailings sent to three tribal governments.

Thacker Pass contains one of the largest known lithium deposits in the world. The project sprawls over 18,000 acres of Numu, Nuwu and Newe ancestral lands. It has also received state level permits, but has been slowed by several lawsuits from indigenous peoples and advocacy groups. All of these lawsuits have failed, including a case alleging the BLM did not adequately consult with indigenous peoples as required under the National Historic Preservation Act. That act requires consultation for development projects on indigenous lands with religious or cultural significance.

As the report notes, US law on indigenous consultation falls well short of the FPIC standard required under international law. FPIC is a fundamental principle of international human rights law embodied in the UN Charter and the International Covenant on Civil & Political Rights. But the right is most clearly defined in the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), which the United States has officially supported since 2011. Article 32 of UNDRIP states:

States shall consult and cooperate in good faith with the indigenous peoples concerned through their own representative institutions in order to obtain their free and informed consent prior to the approval of any project affecting their lands or territories and other resources, particularly in connection with the development, utilization or exploitation of mineral, water or other resources.

Thacker Pass has an important history for local indigenous peoples, being the site of a massacre committed against Numu, Nuwu and Newe by the US Union Army in 1865. The report connects this legacy to the current development of the lithium mine, stating: “The Thacker Pass lithium mine is both tied to violent US settler colonialism and a new era of resource exploitation.”

From JURIST, Feb. 6. Used with permission.

See our last reports on Thacker Pass and the global struggle for lithium.

Photo: Protect Thacker Pass

After two weeks of negotiations, delegates agreed to establish a “subsidiary body” under Article 8J to include indigenous peoples in future decisions on nature conservation, and oblige private corporations to share the benefits of research when tapping genetic resources under the stewardship of indigenous communities.

An indigenous leadership body will be established with two co-chairs, as indicated in the final document. These co-chairs will be elected by COP, with one nominated by UN parties and the other by indigenous representatives. The co-chairs will include at least one member from a developing nation.

The COP16 summit in Cali, Colombia, marked a continuation of efforts initiated by the 2022 Montreal Agreement, which outlined 23 measures to safeguard the planet’s biodiversity. Among these are commitments to protect 30% of the Earth’s land and 30% of threatened ecosystems by 2030. A notable measure adopted at COP16 highlights the essential contributions of peoples of African descent in environmental conservation.

Susana Muhamad, Colombia’s environment minister and president of COP16, commented: “With this decision, the value of the traditional knowledge of Indigenous peoples, Afro-descendants, and local communities is recognized, and a 26-year-old historical debt in the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) is settled.”

One of the summit’s most contentious issues was the ownership of nature’s genetic resources. Negotiators eventually reached a consensus that large corporations must share benefits derived from using the genetic materials of plants, animals or microorganisms in biotechnologies. This agreement includes a “genetic information fee,” set at 0.1% of companies’ revenues from products developed using these resources. The UN special rapporteur on the human right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment, Astrid Puentes Riaño, commented on X (formerly Twitter), “This will significantly help [a] #HumanRights based approach.”

Despite these commitments, the financial pledges made over the two weeks of discussions fell short of what experts said was needed to addres the global biodiversity crisis, with only about $400 million allocated to the fund. These modest financial commitments raise concerns ahead of the forthcoming COP29 climate talks in Azerbaijan, where discussions will concentrate on securing the trillions of dollars necessary for the global shift to renewable energy sources such as solar, wind, and geothermal. Achieving this will demand substantial commitments from nations, corporations, and philanthropists. In July, 230 indigenous groups, unions, and climate and human rights organizations called on the UN Panel on Critical Energy Transition to adopt a transformative an equitable approach to the needed global transition.

From Jurist, Nov. 3. Used with permission.

See our last reports on the Global Biodiversity Framework and the Framework Convention on Climate Change.

Photo: UN Biodiversity via Flickr

Six First Nations from northern Ontario announced Aug. 12 the initiation of a lawsuit challenging the provincial Mining Act, arguing that the legislation infringes upon their treaty rights and other guarantees under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The central contention is that the Act enables prospectors and mining companies to stake claims on Crown lands, including traditional Indigenous territories, without prior consultation, due to a digital claim-staking process that was introduced in 2018. This mechanism allows claims to be registered online within minutes, without the knowledge of affected First Nations.

The First Nations bringing the challenge are the Apitipi Anicinapek Nation, Aroland First Nation, Attawapiskat First Nation, Fort Albany First Nation, Ginoogaming First Nation, and the Kitchenuhmaykoosib Inninuwug. In the application filed last week all six unanimously calledfor an amendment to the legislation and for all pending claims to be voided.

“The Ontario Mining Act is a piece of racist legislation that bulldozes over First Nations lands and rights,” Chief June Black of the Apitipi Anicinapek First Nation told reporters. “It says to the world that the land in Ontario is free for the taking and drilling and blowing up. These are not your lands to give away, Ontario.”

The legal action comes amid Ontario’s ongoing mining exploration boom, driven by the provincial government’s push to provide critical materials to supply the electric vehicle manufacturing economy, especially lithium in the Ring of Fire region of the James Bay lowlands. Currently, approximately 2,000 active claims have been registered in the Ontario Mining Lands Administration System. Both the Ontario Mining Ministry and Ontario Attorney General have declined to comment on the case.

The lawsuit follows similar legal actions in Canada, including a 2023 landmark decision by the British Columbia Supreme Court, in which the provincial government’s mineral claim system was found to violate Indigenous rights, requiring the government to effectively incorporate Indigenous consultation. Additionally, similar legal action was initiated by Grassy Narrows First Nation this July, seeking a ruling from the Ontario Superior Court of Justice to declare the Mining Act unconstitutional.

From Jurist, Aug. 13. Used with permission.

Note: In a related case concerning Indigenous treaty rights in Ontario, the Supreme Court of Canada found for First Nations last month.

See our last reports on the global struggle for lithium.

Photo: Attawapiskat First Nation Office. Credit: Paul Lantz via Wikipedia

Human Rights Watch, however, noted that in Russia “participating in or financing an extremist organization is punishable by up to 12 years in prison.” Thus, the group members will now be susceptible to even longer prison sentences due to the official classifications. Some of the organizations now labelled as “extremist,” like the Free Buryatia Foundation, had already been designated as “undesirable” and “foreign agents” by the Russian authorities.

The Observatory stated that indigenous peoples in Russia are subject to infringement of fundamental rights, “including freedom of expression, the right to self-determination and cultural rights,” as well as being subject to “structural discrimination.” Russian law systematically excludes recognition of indigenous peoples with populations of more than 50,000 people. Larger indigenous groups, such as the Yakut (Sakha) and Komi people, are designated “ethnic minorities,” which is not a legal category, and are thus excluded from international norms protecting indigenous rights.

Indigenous groups have been particularly targeted by Russian military call-up for the Ukraine war, which has been protested by groups such as Aborigen Forum.

From Jurist, Aug. 4, Used with permission.

See our last reports on the Buryat, the Yakut, the Komi, and indigenous struggle in Russia.

See our last report on the crackdown on dissent in Russia.

Photo of Itelmen people in the Kamchatka Peninsula via Wikipedia

According to Chris Chapman, Amnesty International’s advisor on indigenous rights:

We are concerned that the monitoring framework as proposed fails to protect the rights of Indigenous Peoples adequately, nor does it recognize the essential and unique role these communities play in preserving biodiversity. This raises the risk of facilitating “fortress conservation” methods where original inhabitants, who are often Indigenous Peoples, are forcibly evicted from protected areas.

The Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF) is an agreement unanimously adopted by 196 nations during the UN Biodiversity Conference in December 2022. The framework presents a roadmap for creating a world that co-exists peacefully with nature. The GBF includes four 2050 goals and 23 targets for 2030, intended to slow down and reverse biodiversity loss, while harmonizing with the Sustainable Development Goals and building on earlier Strategic Plans under the Convention on Biological Diversity.

Whereas the framework recognizes that the land belonging to indigenous peoples and local communities should be categorized as a distinct section of a given conservation area, the monitoring process does not adequately address this distinction. Amnesty International states that this must be amended during the talks on the proposed monitoring framework, set to open in Nairobi, Kenya.

Amnesty’s call for prioritizing the rights of indigenous peoples in biodiversity monitoring is supported by research findings that highlight the effectiveness of indigenous communities as environmental stewards. Various indigenous groups have put forth metrics based on traditional knowledge to evaluate community well-being, efforts in safeguarding land rights, and indigenous involvement in decision-making processes.

From Jurist, May 12. Used with permission.

See our last reports on the Global Biodiversity Framework and examples of “fortress conservation” in East Africa.

Photo of Wajãpi indigenous people in Brazil via Mongabay

On June 15, provincial lawmakers approved the constitutional reform that would increase mining in Jujuy after a mere three weeks of debate.

Article 14 of the international Indigenous & Tribal Peoples Convention, to which Argentina is a signatory, states: “The rights of ownership and possession of the peoples concerned over the lands which they traditionally occupy shall be [recognized].” Article 15 of the convention also stipulates: “The rights of the peoples concerned to the natural resources pertaining to their lands shall be specially safeguarded. These rights include the right of these peoples to participate in the use, management and conservation of these resources.”

The UN Environment Program (UNEP) said in 2022 that governments should agree on mining principles that safeguard the environment.

From Jurist, Aug. 3. Used with permission.

Note: The march was dubbed the Third Malón de la Paz (which translates somewhat oxymoronically as the Invasion of Peace), after two earlier such mobilizations for land restitution in Jujuy, in 1946 and 2006. (Página12)

See our last post on the global lithium wars.

Photo: UAINE via Twitter

Photo: Goldman Environmental Foundation