Photo: (At left) Lawyer Christina Joynt. Photo from JFK Law LLP website; (Centre) Chief Wilfred Hooka-Nooza of Dene Tha’. / Photo from the Treaty 8 Urban Child and Family Services website.(At right) Dr. Martin Papillon. Photo from the Université de Montréal website.
By Aaron Walker
Local Journalism Initiative Reporter
Windspeaker.com
Four Treaty 8 Nations in northern Alberta have launched a court challenge against the province, claiming Alberta violated their Treaty rights through its latest Crown land sale that the Nations say continues a long pattern of dispossession.
For the Nations of the North Peace, land is not a commodity, but a living relationship passed from one generation to the next, a connection Alberta’s actions continue to threaten, the Nations assert.
The Beaver First Nation, Dene Tha’ First Nation, Little Red River Cree Nation, and Tallcree Tribal Government argue that Alberta’s land-sale decision to sell more than 15,000 acres of public land to Mackenzie County near High Level breaches the province’s constitutional duty to consult and accommodate Indigenous peoples.
The Nations’ judicial review application, filed in the Court of King’s Bench in Edmonton in early October, asks the court to overturn the decision, halt any further Crown land transfers, and require Alberta to engage in meaningful, rights-based consultation.
“This is not just about one land sale,” said Chief Wilfred Hooka-Nooza of Dene Tha’ in a press statement. “This is about a pattern — stretching back to the 1990s — where Alberta continues to erode our traditional territories without considering the cumulative impacts. Alberta has breached its duty to consult and ignored our rights under Treaty 8.”
A history of dispossession
The Nations say that they’ve already lost access to more than 126,000 acres of Crown land within their traditional territories due to past sales, often without meaningful engagement. The lands targeted under the recent sale lie in zones long used for hunting, fishing, trapping, and gathering medicines. The Nations say that Elders have repeatedly warned that further alienation threatens food security and cultural continuity.
In a prepared statement, Chief Rupert Meneen of Tallcree, says the land dispute is not only a legal matter but a threat to the way his people live and connect to the land.
“That Treaty guaranteed the way of life of the Nations of the North Peace would be protected,” he said. “For the Nations, this means ensuring that enough land — of significant ecological and cultural quality — remains for our people to hunt, fish, trap, and live according to our traditions, now and for generations to come.
“The Nations take these Treaty promises seriously, even when the Government of Alberta does not,” he added.
The Nations’ legal application accuses Alberta of narrowing consultation to site-specific impacts, ignoring cumulative effects, proceeding with a predetermined plan, refusing to fund meaningful participation, and violating Section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 and the spirit of Treaty 8.
Jeff Langlois, partner at JFK Law LLP representing the Nations, said the challenge is fundamental.
“This matter is particularly urgent for the communities, as Mackenzie County has indicated — both in formal development planning documents and in prior correspondence — its intention to push the Government of Alberta to transfer a significant portion of additional Crown lands as soon as possible, with further transfers to follow,” he noted.
Windspeaker.com reached out to the offices of Todd Loewen, Alberta’s minister of Forestry and Parks; Rajan Sawhney, minister of Indigenous Relations; and Josh Knelsen, reeve of Mackenzie County, for comment on the judicial review. Requests for comment went unanswered before publication.
The legal argument
Co-counsel for the Nations, Christina Joynt, expanded on the case in a detailed written response to Windspeaker.com in which she set out the key legal arguments. She argued Alberta’s decision represents “a significant taking up of Treaty 8 lands,” converting roughly 15,000 acres of Crown land in the Peace River region into private ownership to establish a new agricultural outpost in the middle of boreal forest that the Nations depend upon, “limiting lands that the Nations can use to exercise their Treaty 8 rights.”
Joynt said Alberta’s consultation process was too narrow in scope, overlooking the cumulative effects of decades of land disposals and offering little transparency about how parcels were selected or whether more sales were planned.
She outlined several core legal arguments forming the foundation of the case. Chief among them, that Alberta failed to engage in what she described as “deep consultation,” a higher standard that demands genuine dialogue, accommodation, and evidence that Indigenous perspectives shaped the final decision. Instead, the province limited its review to site-specific impacts, ignoring broader consequences from years of industrial development, wildfire, drought, and habitat loss across the region.
Joynt also said Alberta entered the process with a predetermined commitment to sell the land, leaving little room for input from the Nations to influence the outcome. Furthermore, she argued the province disregarded its own land use framework by proceeding without regional planning or a cumulative-effects assessment — a move that, in the Nations’ view, undermines even Alberta’s own standards for responsible land management.
If successful, Joynt noted, the case could expand legal precedent by requiring governments to assess cumulative and regional impacts over time, rather than evaluating each Crown land sale in isolation.
Wider implications
While lawyers debate the finer points, Indigenous leaders see the case as a test of the Crown’s commitment to reconciliation, with similar questions surfacing elsewhere.
In Saskatchewan, the provincial government paused the sale of 4,480 acres of Crown land on Oct. 7, following public and Indigenous objections. The auction, originally scheduled to run from Oct. 7 to Oct. 28, was halted to allow for additional consultation and ecological review. The next day, on Oct. 8, Premier Scott Moe extended the pause indefinitely after continued calls for stronger oversight.
That Saskatchewan decision came after sustained pressure from groups, including Saskatchewan-based cattle producers and hunters, the Treaty Land Sharing Network, and the provincial NDP Opposition, arguing that treaty obligations and the public trust must guide decisions about Crown land.
It also underscores a broader national tension: how governments balance economic development with treaty rights and environmental protection. Dr. Martin Papillon, a political science professor at the Université de Montréal who studies Indigenous–state relations and treaty federalism, told Windspeaker.com that Alberta’s approach reflects a broader pattern across provinces.
He explained that governments often interpret the Crown’s duty to consult under Section 35 as a procedural requirement rather than a substantive obligation.
“Part of the problem is that the Crown is both judge and party in consultations. It sets the conditions and procedures based on its assessment of the level of possible infringement. It consults and then it assesses the adequacy of the said process.”
Papillon added that while the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) envisions “free, prior, and informed consent,” Canadian governments have been hesitant to go beyond procedural engagement.
“There is a general reluctance to interpret free, prior, and informed consent as anything beyond a procedural duty to seek (not necessarily obtain) consent — and to equate the standards set in UNDRIP with the existing Canadian legal standards,” he said.
As Alberta’s case moves forward, many will be watching to see whether the courts push for stronger, more enforceable standards for consultation, said Joynt.
Witnessing history
As the judicial review moves forward, the Nations of the North Peace say their goal is not confrontation but collaboration. They are calling for clear, transparent processes that recognize their rights and include them as equal partners in land-use decisions.
“The Nations of the North Peace are not opposed to all development,” Chief Meneen said. “What we are calling for is development that respects and upholds the promises made in Treaty 8.”
The Nations remain committed to defending that future if Alberta proceeds without meaningful consultation. They say Mackenzie County has already requested an additional 350,000 acres of Crown land for agricultural expansion, and absent proper engagement, further court actions remain on the table.
The outcome of the case could shape how provincial governments across Canada interpret their duty to consult — and whether reconciliation extends beyond words to action, said Joynt.