longer.blue

What the Court Said: The Situation: Alberta introduced a new bill (JSAA 2025) while a court case about Alberta independence was still ongoing. This bill would: Repeal the law that allowed this case to go forward Discontinue the case without any costs to either side Essentially shut down the court proceeding before a decision was made Why the Judge is Concerned (Paragraphs 252-254): 1. About changing laws mid-case: Alberta has the legal power to change its laws, but doing so after everyone has already spent significant time and money on the case violates the rule of law. Society depends on stability and predictability; people must trust that rules won’t change midway through a legal process. 2. About wasting court resources: The court system has limited resources. This case was marked as important and given priority. The parties, First Nations groups, and the court invested many days into it. Right as the process neared completion, Alberta chose to change the law, showing disregard for the effort already spent. 3. About democratic principles: Even if the law changes, the court’s decision should still be published because: The public paid for the process Albertans deserve access to the legal analysis if they are asked to vote on independence Democracy requires transparency and reasons for decisions What Happened Next (Paragraphs 250-251): The court continued hearing the case because the new law had not yet been passed. The judge allowed the Blackfoot First Nations intervenors to present their arguments, noting that it would be unfair to deny them their opportunity to speak after they had prepared extensively, especially since they began their work before Alberta announced the law change.