Sturgeon Lake Cree Nation issues notice to members amid Jeffrey Rath trusts scandal

Jeffrey Rath shows his support for Mitch Sylvestre as he submits signatures for a separation referendum to Elections Alberta in Edmonton on May 4, 2026. THE CANADIAN PRESS/Jason Franson

Sturgeon Lake Cree Nation is speaking out to members about concerns over its dealings with prominent Alberta separatist and lawyer Jeffrey Rath.

In a notice posted to its social media on Thursday, Sturgeon Lake Cree Nation said following its cows and plows settlement, “the members’ per capita distributions were placed in a trust fund.”

“The PCDs for our minors were to be held in that trust fund until our children (born by 2017) turned 18,” the notice said.

“Jeffrey RW Rath Corporation (Rath PC) is and has always been the sole trustee of these funds. This means he is responsible for holding them in trust for our children until they turn 18.”

The notice went on to say some “started to report discrepancies in the PCD amounts (below the original PCD or excluding interest)” in 2024 and 2025.

“We pursued a court application to remove Rath PC as trustee and for him to pass accounts,” it said.

“We are working to expedite this application given the discovery this week.”

The notice went on to say documents came to light during Tallcree First Nation litigation against Rath PC, “suggesting that Jeffrey R.W. Rath Professional Corporation, operating as Rath & Company, withdrew approximately $12 million from Sturgeon Lake Cree Nation’s minors trust in 2023 and 2024.”

“This was the first we learned of these withdrawals,” it said.

“We are deeply concerned about these withdrawals. We are taking all steps possible to protect the trust money and track, trace and secure any illegal withdrawal from the trust.”

Tallcree First Nation

A judge has extended a special court order freezing Rath’s assets as part of an ongoing trust fund dispute with Tallcree First Nation.

The northern Alberta First Nation alleges Rath, its former lawyer, misappropriated millions from the fund.

The allegations have not been tested in court.

Justice John Gill said Wednesday the extension was justified given questions surrounding payments from the fund and surrounding Rath.

Gill told court there exists “a real risk that the respondents have been actively taking steps and will continue to take steps to frustrate the process of locating the missing money.”

“There is further evidence of misrepresentations made by Mr. Rath to the court concerning his dealings with the trust’s auditors,” he said.

Gill’s decision affirms the decision last week in Calgary by Justice Michael Marion to grant a temporary injunction freezing up to $8.5 million in assets held by Rath and his law firm.

Rath responds over X

Rath took to social media Thursday morning to address his “fee dispute.”

He said it’s with “a client who negotiated a reduced 20% rate on a contingent fee agreement.”

“Following a very successful outcome, the Chief and Council then proceeded to litigate for years on the basis that the contract they agreed to by Band Council Resolution was ‘unreasonable,’” he said.

“Chief and Council pursued this litigation to have the 20% Fee PAID TO THEMSELVES.

“Upon review of the fee agreement and the circumstances of its execution, the Review Officer, being the judicial expert on fees and fee agreements, found as a matter of fact and law that the agreement was ‘reasonable.’”

Rath went on to say that on appeal, “Justice Lee of the Court of Queen’s Bench found that a lawyer who took on the risk of what could potentially turn into a 10-year piece of litigation should be paid on the same basis as a realtor.”

He said Lee “made a number of other erroneous findings.”

“The agreed 20% fee was reduced to 5% on the basis of these findings, which were confirmed to amount to a series of serious judicial errors by a unanimous Court of Appeal,” he said.

Rath went on to say, “Justice Wakeling of the Court of Appeal would have overturned Justice Lee’s decision in the court below.”

He said Wakeling “found the fee agreement was ‘reasonable.’”

“Justices Frans Slatter and Kevin Feehan agreed that Justice Lee had erred repeatedly in fact and law and without remitting the case to the court below for a rehearing, simply replaced Justice Lee’s decision with their own,” he said.

“They effectively ruled that an after-the-fact re-writing of the terms of a negotiated agreement from 20% to 5% was ‘reasonable.’”

The Court of Appeal never re-wrote the terms of the trust “approved by 94% of Tallcree members voting on it,” Rath went on to say.

He said the trust “required 20% of the settlement funds to be paid as ‘legal fees’ as a ‘first charge.’ This was agreed to after the fact, with full disclosure of the fee, by 94% of the members who voted.”

“The payment of the fee to Chief and Council was rejected by both Justice Lee AND the Court of Appeal following successful action funded by the trust,” he said.

“Chief and Council now claim the costs of defeating their claim on the funds is a ‘misappropriation’ of trust funds.

“The Settlement Trust expressly provided for the payment of legal expenses, settlement and administrative fees and expenses. Jeffrey Rath maintains (it) was done in accordance with the terms of the trust.”