For decades, lawyer Jeffrey Rath built a career helping First Nations sue Canada and Alberta, securing treaty and claims settlements worth tens of millions of dollars.
A Global News investigation, however, found those victories were often followed by another fight: former clients challenging Rath over his fees, conduct and, in some cases, control over settlement money.
These court battles now shadow Rath’s new role as a legal architect of Alberta independence. The lawyer who told courts that governments had failed First Nations is now being accused by some First Nations of failing them himself.
He declined to answer specific questions from Global News as the matters remain before the court, but said: “Suffice it to say, clients are always happy when you spend years funding and pursuing cases on their behalf.”
“Many are unhappy when they are rewarded for the hard work of their legal counsel and are billed exactly what they agreed to pay on a percentage basis at the outset of the case.”
None of the allegations has been proven in court.
Rath was a prominent voice during the pandemic: he sued Alberta on behalf of clients over COVID-19 restrictions, briefly supported so-called “Freedom Convoy” organizers and helped build the Alberta Prosperity Project into what is arguably the province’s most visible separatist vehicle. Once broadly aligned with Alberta Premier Danielle Smith’s sovereignty agenda, he reportedly attacks her from the independence wing of Alberta politics, arguing she has not moved far or fast enough toward separation.
Rath is also acting for Stay Free Alberta’s Mitch Sylvestre in the independence petition fight, which was halted after First Nations successfully argued that Alberta failed to consult them. In June, the Court of Appeal allowed Elections Alberta to count and report the signatures while the case continues.
Last month, Tallcree First Nation’s long-running fight with Rath escalated from a fee dispute into a battle over trust money that court documents indicated was earmarked for minors.
In 2021, Alberta courts slashed the 20 per cent fee Rath & Company charged for Tallcree’s $57.6-million Treaty 8 settlement, ordering an $8.5-million refund into the First Nation’s trust. According to an affidavit filed by Tallcree Chief Rupert Meneen, the trust distributed settlement money to beneficiaries and held minors’ shares until they reached adulthood. Rath’s firm was the fund’s sole trustee.
On July 10, a judge granted an interim Mareva order temporarily freezing up to $8.5 million in assets belonging to Rath and his firm, finding reasonable grounds to believe assets could be moved or dissipated before judgment. It remains in effect until July 15, when a further hearing is scheduled.
New court filings underpinning the injunction allege Rath withheld financial statements from the trust. It was only through those filings, Tallcree’s lawyers say, that the nation’s leadership discovered he had charged more than $6 million in 2024 — the same fiscal year the trust was required to repay the court. Tallcree’s lawyers argue the trust may have effectively paid for much of its own repayment.
“Challenging contingencies is uncommon. The fact that he’s had multiple challenges is a little unusual,” University of Alberta law professor Gerard Kennedy says.
Sturgeon Lake First Nation is embroiled in a similar fight with Rath. In February 2025, Alberta’s Court of Appeal upheld a ruling that Rath could not enforce the 20 per cent contract behind his $28.6-million fee from the nation’s Treaty 8 settlement. Chief Sheldon Sunshine says he believes Rath is delaying a court review to determine a fair fee.
The First Nation is also seeking to remove Rath’s corporation as trustee of its own fund, which now holds money for minor beneficiaries, alleging incorrect payouts, difficulty getting information, rude treatment by Rath & Company staff and incomplete financial statements.
Several First Nations leaders, including Sunshine, say Rath is now publicly threatening the very rights he once fought to enforce.
“They’re thinking that … they could move into our house, rent a room and take that room with them when they leave, but that’s not happening,” Sunshine says.
Rath built his reputation by securing major legal victories for First Nations. In 2005, he helped Mikisew Cree First Nation win a landmark Supreme Court ruling on the Crown’s duty to consult before decisions affecting treaty rights. He also appeared as an intervener in 2013 for Treaty One First Nations in a Supreme Court case over Canada’s failure to honour historic Métis land promises. He earned a Bachelor of Arts with honours in political science and government from the University of Alberta and a Bachelor of Laws with honours from the London School of Economics, according to his LinkedIn profile. Rath founded his law firm in the small town of Priddis in 1995.
In 2017, Rath represented Sturgeon Lake and Tallcree First Nation on their Treaty 8 agricultural benefits, or “cows and plows,” claim against Canada, enforcing 20 per cent contingency fees, should he prove successful.
Get daily National news
Get daily Canada news delivered to your inbox so you’ll never miss the day’s top stories.
Contingency fees shift the financial risk of litigation to lawyers, who are paid only if a case succeeds, allowing them to take a share of any settlement rather than bill hourly. The arrangements are more commonly used in personal injury litigation. In First Nations cases, supporters say the structure can help fund costly claims, but critics say it can turn treaty payouts into windfalls for lawyers when communities lack leverage or independent advice.
Both agreements were later challenged in court.
In 2020, Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench Justice Donald Lee found Rath & Company’s 20 per cent Tallcree contingency fee unreasonable. He later noted that Rath had kept no time records in the file and later produced reconstructed estimates worth less than $392,000 against the $11.5-million fee he charged — even with a $500-$600 hourly rate. Lee also found that “most of the work product found in the Record is actually simple emails created and signed by his paralegal.”
While the Court of Appeal rejected parts of Lee’s reasoning — including the suggestion that Rath’s lobbying and settlement work was not real legal work — it still dismissed Rath’s appeals and left the reduced fee in place.
“We generally do want to uphold contingency fees in the face of certainty, and because we know that some cases will otherwise not be brought.… Having said that, that one pushed the envelope of reason, to put it mildly.”
But Tallcree’s fight with Rath over settlement money continues.
On June 24, court documents show that Meneen’s lawyers filed an “urgent” application with the Court of King’s Bench, alleging that his corporation had misappropriated approximately $6.4 million from the First Nation’s trust.
Meneen’s lawyers gave Rath until June 17 to explain and document the disputed trust charges. Rath’s counsel replied that day, stating he had been unavailable since June 5 due to a death in the family and could not meet the deadline.
According to an online obituary, Rath’s wife of 25 years, Dayna Laverick-Rath, died on June 5.
The day after Rath said he couldn’t meet the deadline, he nonetheless appeared in the Court of Appeal to argue a stay application on behalf of the Stay Free Alberta group.
Other First Nations have launched challenges regarding Rath’s fees. Prophet River First Nation is headed to a three-week trial in Calgary in May 2027, alleging Rath collected about $10.8 million in fees and payments — approved by the band’s council — after securing a $130-million settlement, despite a retainer that entitled his firm to just $2.6 million. Rath’s statement of defence says council resolutions authorized the payments and argues the lawsuit is a “collateral attack” that can only be heard in the Federal Court.
Chief Sunshine was not in a leadership role when Sturgeon Lake approved its Treaty 8 agricultural benefits, or “cows and plows,” agreement with Rath. But he says he was already hearing similar complaints from other First Nations and tried to raise concerns, though he felt there was not enough support to challenge it.
When Canada settled that claim for roughly $143 million, Rath & Company’s contingency agreement meant they took about $28 million. Sunshine says the nation “didn’t realize the amount of money that they were giving up.”
But Rath did not keep most of the funds he was granted.
Court records from 2022 indicate that Rath was advanced $10 million by litigation funders for the Sturgeon Lake case and repaid them $23.3 million after settlement funds were received. Litigation funding is a controversial practice in which a third-party funder finances a legal dispute and receives a percentage of the settlement.
Rath has faced at least 10 Alberta Law Society citation allegations across four disciplinary matters since 2024. Five have resulted in findings or admissions of conduct warranting sanction, including reprimands and cost awards; three remain outstanding, and two were dismissed.
Across multiple disputes, two themes emerge. First Nations allege Rath either continued acting after being fired or made major legal decisions without consulting them.
In September 2019, Rath represented Thunderchild First Nation in Saskatchewan at a court hearing, two months after they had fired him.
The Law Society found that Rath delayed transferring the file after the nation fired him, pending recognition of his contingency fee agreement, and then attended a Federal Court case-management conference without advising the court or Crown counsel that his retainer had ended. He was reprimanded in May 2025 and ordered to pay $10,000 in costs.
Rath is now suing them. In 2024, he filed a claim for his contingency fee, which was $38-85 million of Thunderchild’s $155.4-million Treaty 6 settlement.
Saskatchewan’s Moosomin First Nation took more drastic action against Rath.
In December 2022, a month after replacing Rath & Company, Moosomin council passed a resolution barring Rath from its lands, alleging he attended a members-only meeting after being told not to, tried to re-enter after being asked to leave and went to two council members’ homes. Council said his “physical and verbal attempts of intimidation and baseless accusations” caused members to fear for their safety.
Rath challenged his dismissal, accusing the new lawyers and the Moosomin leadership of misconduct, including bribery, and later sought an order to force the new lawyers to answer 161 cross-examination questions, according to court documents.
The Federal Court dismissed the motion and ordered Rath & Company to pay $32,392.50 to the new lawyers and $10,435 to Moosomin, plus interest. A later appeal was dismissed.
In December 2025, he launched a lawsuit against Moosomin for $19.2 million, claiming that, despite being replaced years before the case settled, he is entitled to a 15 per cent contingency fee from its $127.8-million settlement with Canada.
Rath also sued Stoney First Nation. According to court documents, the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench found that, after representing them in an election dispute, he had represented the nation without authority. The court also found that hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal bills were never properly authorized because he was retained by the chief, and the council did not authorize the retainer.
Critics say such cases reflect a broader concern about how contingency-fee litigation can blur the lines between legal advocacy and commercial interests.
A fight with Peguis First Nation shows that business side.
Peguis sued Rath in Alberta in 2014 over the Assiniboia Downs redevelopment, alleging that he placed $22 million in trust with Rath & Company and that he wrongfully withheld funds; the claim also alleged that his retainer gave him a four per cent share of future revenues and raised a potential conflict involving the Manitoba Jockey Club. Rath denied wrongdoing, said both sides had received independent legal advice, and counterclaimed, alleging that Peguis insiders had sabotaged the project. The case was later discontinued without a merits ruling.
“To see him take so much from so many nations and now lead the separation in Alberta is appalling, with total disregard of the treaty nations’ inherent rights,” Sweetgrass First Nation Chief Lorie Whitecalf told Global News.
Sweetgrass also challenged Rath & Company’s legal bills in court – but Rath was largely successful on appeal.
For many First Nations leaders who have hired Rath, his new role as public advocate for Alberta’s autonomy has been especially galling.
Global News visited Rath’s Foothills property in 2025 to speak about the independence movement gaining traction. He was quick to answer questions about that, but when the talk turned to the Law Society citations he was facing at the time, he turned sombre.
“These things are very embarrassing to me,” Rath said, sitting at his kitchen table.
“When people accuse me of unprofessional conduct … I take that very seriously. I take it very personally. Am I perfect? Have I had a tendency over the years to say or state things very strongly in a way that’s probably not appropriate at a very polite university gathering? Probably.”
Declining to answer a list of Global News’s questions for this story, Rath said: “I’m not litigating these issues in the press.”
Because while much of the defence of his legal work has unfolded far from the public spotlight, Rath has publicly evolved into a legal advocate for Alberta’s future.
The independence push Rath helped champion meant Stay Free Alberta submitted 301,620 signatures, far above the 177,732 required under Alberta’s citizen-initiative rules to request a referendum.
He rejects suggestions that Alberta’s independence efforts would sidestep treaty rights, arguing any move toward separation would require negotiations with First Nations under the Clarity Act.
“If anybody understands First Nations, Jeff should,” Sylvestre told Global News.
But for First Nations leaders, the issue is not how many Albertans signed a petition. The question is whether Alberta can even begin a process that could alter treaty relationships without them.
“We’re the first inhabitants of this land. We made concessions, we made agreements in order for these lands to be settled, and that’s what these people are forgetting.”