/Alberta Justices Emphasize Independence After Smith Remarks
- The Alberta government, led by Premier Danielle Smith, has faced criticism for actions perceived as interference with the judicial system.
- Alberta NDP Leader Naheed Nenshi and justice critic Irfan Sabir have publicly condemned the government's actions.
- Premier Smith's government has utilized legislation, deemed legal, to discontinue active court proceedings or exempt laws that had been suspended by the courts.The Legislative Assembly of Alberta records...
Judicial independence is foundational to a properly functioning democracy, Alberta’s chief justices, representing the province’s three judicial branches, wrote in a pointed statement released days after Premier Danielle Smith said she wished she could “direct” judges.
Tuesday’s public statement, a rare step for the province’s top judges, was signed by Acting Chief Justice Dawn Pentelechuk, with the Court of Appeal; chief Justice Kent Davidson, with the Court of King’s Bench; and Chief Justice James hunter, with the alberta Court of Justice.
The independence of each branch of government “ensures there are checks and balances across the system. It is the foundation of a healthy democracy,” they wrote in the statement, which a court representative said was developed over several weeks.
“Public trust and confidence in our institutions – and all three branches of government – depend on it. It is indeed equally critically important that each branch respect and support the independence of the others.”
Robyn Urback: If nothing else, Danielle Smith is a disruptor
The statement doesn’t directly call out Ms. Smith or her ruling united Conservative Party, but was released after a series of public remarks she made that appeared to cast doubt on the integrity of the judicial system.”I wish I could direct the judges, honestly,” Ms. Smith said last weekend to a caller to her radio show, who complained about Canada’s bail laws.
she added that she recently wrote to Prime Minister Mark Carney proposing more provincial involvement in
Alberta Government and Judicial Conflict
Table of Contents
The Alberta government, led by Premier Danielle Smith, has faced criticism for actions perceived as interference with the judicial system. This stems from legislative maneuvers used to halt court proceedings and override judicial decisions.As of January 28, 2026, these events remain a point of contention between the government and opposition parties, and also raising concerns about the rule of law.
Naheed Nenshi and the Alberta NDP’s Response
Alberta NDP Leader Naheed Nenshi and justice critic Irfan Sabir have publicly condemned the government’s actions. they characterized the actions as “irresponsible and anti-democracy” and accused Premier Smith and Justice minister Mickey Amery of creating mistrust in the justice system.
Legislative Actions to Circumvent Court Rulings
Premier Smith’s government has utilized legislation, deemed legal, to discontinue active court proceedings or exempt laws that had been suspended by the courts.The Legislative Assembly of Alberta records show a pattern of bills introduced to address ongoing legal challenges.
In December 2025, the Alberta government passed legislation to end all court proceedings initiated by Alberta’s Chief Electoral officer, Gordon McClure. This action directly followed a request from McClure for a court opinion on the constitutionality of a proposed independence referendum question.
Court of King’s Bench Justice Colin Feasby’s Criticism
Prior to the bill’s passage, Court of King’s Bench Justice Colin Feasby issued a constitutional review of the independence referendum question. in his decision, Justice Feasby criticized the government’s attempt to circumvent the court process, stating it was “the antithesis of the stable, predictable, and ordered society that the rule of law contemplates, and democracy demands.” The full decision is available on the Alberta Courts website.
Justice Minister Mickey Amery’s Role
Alberta Justice Minister Mickey Amery tabled the legislation in December 2025 that ultimately ended the court proceedings initiated by the Chief Electoral Officer.
Latest Verified Status: As of January 28, 2026, no new legislative actions or court rulings directly addressing this conflict have been reported by authoritative sources. The situation remains as described in reporting from late 2025.