Alberta separatist fought legal battles with 4 other First Nations

Jeffrey Rath, an Alberta lawyer and one of the proponents of provincial separation, is in court over a civil matter involvling the Tallcree First Nation this week. (File)

A controversial lawyer and separatist leader who has been embroiled in a legal dispute with an Alberta First Nation has fought with Indigenous groups before.

Jeffrey Rath, best known for his representation of the Alberta Prosperity Project on the matter of its provincial referendum petition, is in court this week after the Tallcree First Nation applied to have a judge’s order freeze $8.5 million of his assets the band says he misappropriated.

• Sign up for breaking news alerts from CTV News, right at your fingertips
• The information you need to know, sent directly to you: Download the CTV News App

The battle between Rath and Tallcree stems from a partnership the two had over a case involving the federal government failing to provide benefits to the First Nation under Treaty 8.

Tallcree was not the only First Nation that used Rath to represent them in similar court cases.

The Mikisew Cree First Nation, Sturgeon Lake Cree Nation, Sweetgrass First Nation and Stoney Nakoda First Nation have all waged legal battles with Rath.

All the conflicts had to do with fees Rath charged them for his services.

In April 2025, the Alberta Court of Appeal allowed an appeal from Mikisew that challenged the enforceability of two contingency fee agreements that the band entered into with Rath over “an annuities and education claim.”

The court’s decision invalidated both agreements, saying that Rath didn’t send them to Mikisew in a timely manner and did not alert the band of its rights.

In February 2025, Rath appealed a decision by the Alberta Court of Justice that declared a $28-million contingency fee connected to a 2017 settlement for the Sturgeon Lake First Nation was unenforceable.

He was unsuccessful.

“In conclusion, we agree with the chambers judge that nothing is more fundamental to a fee agreement than a provision that tells the client in “precise and understandable terms” what the maximum fee will be given the stated eventualities. In our view, the chambers judge committed no palpable and overriding error in concluding the contingency fee agreement in this matter does not substantively comply with Rule 10.7 and is therefore unenforceable,” the Alberta Court of Appeal said.

That decision involved a $143-million settlement from the Government of Canada to Sturgeon Lake over agricultural benefits.

For his role in brokering the deal, Rath received a 20 per cent contingency fee in the amount of $28,577,607.80, but Justice C.D. Simard of the Alberta Court of King’s Bench found it was unenforceable in 2024, prompting the lawyer’s appeal.

In 2014, Rath appealed a decision from the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench, where the Sweetgrass First Nation sought a review of Rath’s company accounts. Sweetgrass retained Rath as counsel “for a variety of legal matters over several years.”

The band sought the review to determine whether the fees Rath charged were excessive in any way and a review officer found his rate of $400 per hour was too high.

In the appeal, Rath fought back against that decision, saying the reductions ordered in the review officer were too high.

Two justices of the panel agreed, saying most of the reductions were too high, ordering them back to another review officer.

The third justice dissented, saying he would have reinstated the original review officer’s decision.

In 2013, Rath took the Stoney Nakoda First Nation to court over an invoice he submitted to the band for work he claimed to have done.

The Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench’s Justice G.C. Hawco determined that Rath did not, in fact, represent the band and was not entitled to any fees.

“Stoney Nakoda Nations is comprised of three separate first nations, the Bearspaw First Nation (BFN), Chiniki First Nation (CFN) and the Wesley First Nation (WFN),” Hawco said.

For the Stoney Nakoda to retain legal counsel, all three chiefs needed to sign a resolution.

The only document, a fee agreement and terms of engagement from Rath, was signed by two out of the three chiefs.

Despite not having a unanimous decision on the resolution, Rath proceeded to represent the Stoney Nakoda and ended up charging the band $216,882.85.

Hawco, given that no binding resolution signed by all three chiefs existed, ruled the Stoney Nakoda was not Rath’s client.

“Chief Bearspaw (BFN) and Chief Labelle (CFN) did not have the actual authority or the ostensible authority to purport to bind either the Stoney Tribal Council or the Stoney First Nation,” the justice said.

“They were aware that certain procedures had to be followed and they did not follow them. Rath and Company were aware of the procedures and that they had not been followed.”

Prior to the Stoney Nakoda ruling, Rath is listed as counsel for a variety of First Nations groups, representing them on matters involving their lands.

Rath also represented controversial clients

In addition to representing First Nations, Rath was also legal counsel for several outspoken individuals who pushed back against Alberta’s public health orders during the COVID-19 pandemic.

One of those individuals was Rebecca Marie Ingram and Christopher Scott, owners of the Whistle Stop Café in Mirror, Alta.

Rath was called as counsel to help certify a class-action lawsuit “on behalf of individuals who owned and operated businesses who were adversely affected by the orders issued in the name of the Chief Medical Officer of Health to mitigate the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic.”

In its decision, the Alberta Court of King’s Bench adjourned the application for the certification to allow the affected parties “to amend their materials or pleadings or to permit further evidence.”

“I am satisfied that an adjournment is appropriate in the present circumstances because the application to certify the proposed corporate class as currently conceived poses a significant threat to the efficient and fair administration of the proceeding,” said Justice C.J. Feasby.

“I emphasize that by adjourning this application, I am not finding that the application is irredeemable. To the contrary, my purpose in adjourning the application is to give the plaintiffs an opportunity to address the court’s concerns and possibly take a different approach.”

In another COVID-19 related matter, Rath represented Brian Smart, a sessional lecturer at the University of Lethbridge.

Smart was hired to work from Aug. 1 to Dec. 31, 2021, teaching Latin.

About a month before the end of his contract, the school instructed all of its staff to acquire a COVID-19 vaccination or have a legitimate exemption in place.

Smart was placed on unpaid leave and ended up filing a human rights complaint against the University of Lethbridge for discrimination.

The complaint was dismissed by the director of the commission, and the Human Rights Tribunal of Alberta upheld that decision on Aug. 13, 2024.

Run-ins with Law Society

Rath, who was admitted to the Alberta bar in 1991 and is based in Airdrie, was also at odds with the Law Society of Alberta after he sent several letters to several government officials in 2021 and 2022.

Some of the addressees of his messages included Justin Trudeau, Jason Kenney as well as various federal and provincial health officials.

The subjects of the letters, which were printed on his own company’s letterhead, had to do with COVID vaccines and the safety of those injections for children.

The Law Society of Alberta (LSA) was notified when it was alleged that Rath’s notes threatened criminal charges and were “discourteous, offensive and otherwise inconsistent with the proper tone of a professional communication.”

The society also alleged Rath sent the messages to individuals that he knew or should have known were represented by lawyers.

In a decision, dated May 25, the society dismissed the allegations of threatening criminal charges to gain benefit for a client.

“The LSA has proven that Mr. Rath’s letters contained language amounting to threats of criminal complaints and that he intended to influence public health decisions makers,” the decision read.

“However, the LSA has failed to adduce sufficient evidence for the committee to find, on a balance of probabilities, that Mr. Rath made those threats in an attempt to gain a benefit for a client.”

The second citation against Rath was not proven, but the LSA found he would be sanctioned over the unprofessional language used in the letters.

That hearing is scheduled for a later date.

Interviews with Rath about his current legal matter with Tallcree have been declined.