a petition by alberta to separate does not fall under the traditional concept of the duty to consult, which is about land or resource use, but is rather strictly within the confines of how the colonial state operates. further, the law is clear that a duty to consult is not a duty to listen. it's consequently not entirely clear what the court even ordered. does alberta need to consult with indigenous groups before they secede or before they have a referendum? does this apply to any or all refrerenda? do they need to consult again if the referendum passes? in an attempt to quickly dispense of something it doesn't like in the easiest way possible, the court just handed indigenous groups a veto over potentially anything at all.
for example, i could see indigenous groups using this ruling to argue against patriation, which is fundamentally the same thing from the indigenous perspective.
i don't see what role that indigenous groups should have in colonial governance, other than through democratic participation. their treaty rights should and must be transferred to whatever entity the colonial state puts in charge, but the colonial state needs to govern it's own affairs in it's own ways, it can't be forced to ask indigenous groups how to run itself.
this again traces back to poor selection criteria determined by the trudeau government. the court matters. if you pick poor justices, you run the serious risk of ending up as a failed state.