ATHABASCA CHIPEWYAN FIRST NATION v ALBERTA (CHIEF ELECTORAL OFFICER), 2026 ABCA 287

The proposed intervenor, the Development Foundation of Treaty Six Confederacy (“Treaty Six Confederacy”), applied for leave to intervene in several related Appeals concerning Judicial Review proceedings quashing approval of a citizen-initiated petition for a referendum proposal on Alberta separation.

The Treaty Six Confederacy, comprised of sixteen Treaty No 6. First Nations, sought to make submissions regarding the duty to consult and the potential impact of the Appeals on Treaty and Aboriginal rights protected by Section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, while taking no position on the outcome of the Appeals. It argued that no existing party represented the distinct interests of Treaty No. 6 signatories and that it could offer a perspective different from the Treaty No. 7 and Treaty No. 8 First Nations already participating in the Appeals.

Feehan J.A. recognized that intervention is discretionarily permitted pursuant to Rules 2.10, 14.37(2) and 14.58(1) and emphasized that an intervener must provide useful and distinct submissions arising from a special interest or expertise. The Court applied the two-step intervention analysis, considering both the nature of the proceedings and the proposed intervenor's interest in the outcome. Given the constitutional and appellate context, the Court applied a more relaxed standard. Feehan J.A. found that Treaty Six Confederacy would be directly affected by the Court's decision, offered a unique Treaty No. 6 perspective, and would assist the Court without causing delay, prejudice, or expansion of the issues in dispute. Further, Treaty Six Confederacy’s perspective was useful and distinct due to its special interest and expertise in Section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, Treaty No. 6, and the duty to consult context.

The Court granted Treaty Six Confederacy intervenor status. Feehan J.A. held that the proposed intervention was fair, reasonable, and just, and directed that procedural matters, including factum length, filing deadlines, and oral argument time, be addressed through case management. The Court made no Costs Award.