The head of the Saskatchewan Teachers’ Federation expressed optimism about the Supreme Court providing clarity on the province’s pronoun law, as the court announced it would review appeals related to the law. The legislation restricts minors under 16 from altering their names or pronouns in school without parental approval, a situation that Samantha Becotte stated places educators in a challenging position. Becotte emphasized the need for the repeal of Bill 137 by the Saskatchewan government to grant teachers professional autonomy. She stressed that teachers should have the freedom to use their expertise to establish inclusive learning environments for all students in Saskatchewan.
No specific date has been scheduled for the court to address the cross appeals from the provincial government and UR Pride, a 2SLGBTQ+ group in Regina. The Saskatchewan Party government, led by Premier Scott Moe, introduced the policy in 2023, asserting that parents should be involved in their children’s school decisions. Legal representatives for UR Pride contested the regulation in court, arguing that it violates Charter rights and harms gender diverse youth irreparably.
Initially, an injunction was granted to halt the policy; however, a month later, the province enshrined it into law using the notwithstanding clause, allowing the override of certain Charter rights for five years. Despite the province’s argument that the challenge should be dismissed due to the clause invocation, the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal ruled that the case can proceed. The court clarified that while it cannot nullify the legislation because of the notwithstanding clause, it can issue a declaratory judgment on the law’s compliance with constitutional rights. Moreover, UR Pride can still advocate for the law’s annulment as the notwithstanding clause did not apply to Section 12 of the Charter, which pertains to freedom from cruel and unusual treatment.
Both UR Pride and the province have appealed and requested an expedited hearing at the Supreme Court to coincide with a Quebec law challenge prohibiting public sector employees from wearing religious symbols. The Quebec law also utilized the notwithstanding clause.
Adam Goldenberg, a lawyer from Toronto representing UR Pride, contended that the law violates Charter rights and harms gender diverse youth irreparably. Goldenberg emphasized the importance of the government defending the law with evidence in court. Louis-Philippe Lampron, a constitutional law expert at Université Laval in Quebec, noted that the Supreme Court’s involvement reflects the evolution of Canadian law and the tendency of some provinces to appeal to populist sentiments.
In a similar legal battle in Alberta, Premier Danielle Smith’s administration invoked the notwithstanding clause to end a provincewide teachers strike and protect its legislation on school pronouns, female sports, and gender-affirming health care from legal challenges. Notably, Alberta faces opposition to laws requiring parental consent for youth to use different names or pronouns at school and banning transgender girls from participating in amateur female sports. Smith has indicated the potential use of the notwithstanding clause to expedite the resolution of these issues by the courts.