‘Pattern of behaviour’: Rath faces mounting questions over First Nation trusts

Sturgeon Lake Cree Nation is raising concerns about $12 million in alleged withdrawals from its trust, overseen by Alberta separatist lawyer Jeffrey Rath and his professional corporation. Court documents reveal that over $11 million was paid to Rath & Company as administrative fees, with another $575,000 tied to legal expenses.

The allegations emerged from material filed in a separate court battle between Rath and Tallcree First Nation. Following this, a provincial judge granted an interim Mareva order, also known as a freezing order, against Rath and his firm. This extraordinary pre-judgment remedy prevents defendants from transferring or hiding assets before a case is decided.

During a hearing, Justice John Gill extended the Mareva order until Aug. 11 and approved a receivership order. This places an independent court officer in control of assets and records to trace and protect the "missing" trust money. Justice Gill expressed concern about a "pattern of behaviour" by the respondents and the potential intermingling of trust assets, referencing both the Sturgeon Lake and Tallcree cases.

Rath, a prominent voice in the separatist movement and a long-time representative for First Nations in treaty settlements, faces escalating legal challenges from two First Nations. Both allege his firm charged undisclosed trust fees and withheld financial records. These cases follow eight other First Nations that have been involved in court or Law Society proceedings against Rath, according to a Global News investigation.

Rath has not yet responded to the latest allegations. The current legal fight is linked to a long-running dispute with Sturgeon Lake, following a February 2025 Alberta Court of Appeal ruling that upheld an order preventing Rath from enforcing a 20 percent contract for his $28.6-million fee from the nation's Treaty 8 settlement. The Nation has also sought to remove Rath as the sole trustee, citing issues with payouts, information access, and alleged mistreatment.

“

This raises a concern about a pattern of behaviour by the respondents and the potential intermingling of trust assets.