The president of the Saskatchewan Teachers’ Federation expressed optimism about the Supreme Court’s upcoming review of the province’s pronoun law. This law currently prohibits minors under 16 from altering their names or pronouns at school without parental consent, leading to challenges for educators, according to Samantha Becotte. She emphasized the need for professional autonomy for teachers and urged the government to repeal Bill 137 to allow educators to create inclusive learning environments in Saskatchewan.
The date for the Supreme Court to hear the appeals from the provincial government and UR Pride, a 2SLGBTQ+ group in Regina, has not been scheduled. The Saskatchewan Party government, led by Premier Scott Moe, implemented the rule as a policy in 2023, arguing for parental involvement in school-related decisions made by children.
Legal representatives for UR Pride have contested the rule in court, asserting that it violates Charter rights and negatively impacts gender diverse youth. Although an injunction was initially granted to halt the policy, the province later enshrined it into law and utilized the notwithstanding clause, allowing the override of specific Charter rights for a five-year period.
Despite the province’s argument that the challenge should be dismissed due to the invocation of the notwithstanding clause, Saskatchewan’s Court of Appeal ruled that the case can proceed. The court clarified that while it cannot strike down the legislation due to the clause, it can issue a declaratory judgment on the law’s compliance with constitutional rights. Additionally, UR Pride is permitted to argue for the law’s repeal, as the notwithstanding clause was not applied to Section 12 of the Charter concerning cruel and unusual treatment.
Both UR Pride and the province have appealed and requested expedited consideration of the case by the Supreme Court, alongside a challenge to a Quebec law concerning religious symbols in the public sector. Quebec also employed the notwithstanding clause in its legislation.
Adam Goldenberg, a lawyer representing UR Pride, emphasized the violation of Charter rights and harm to gender diverse youth by the law. He stressed the importance of the government defending the law with evidence. Goldenberg highlighted the significance of allowing young people to present their case before a judge.
Louis-Philippe Lampron, a constitutional law professor at Université Laval in Quebec, noted the significance of the Supreme Court’s involvement in the case, highlighting the evolving nature of Canadian law and the influence of populist movements on provincial decisions. Lampron suggested that while the notwithstanding clause might be used to appeal to populist sentiment, court challenges could deter legislatures from using the clause too freely.
In Alberta, a similar legal battle is unfolding, with Premier Danielle Smith’s government invoking the notwithstanding clause to address a teachers’ strike and to protect legislation regarding school pronouns, female sports, and gender-affirming healthcare from legal challenges. The laws have faced opposition, with one bill temporarily halted by a judge’s injunction. Smith has not confirmed the use of the notwithstanding clause but indicated it might be necessary given the potential lengthy legal processes involved in resolving these issues.