Just some news and comments:
First, I was thrilled to see this: the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal just ruled that, regardless of its notwithstanding clause, our courts can still decide whether Saskatchewan's Deadname law violates constitutional rights.
(And yes, I call this the Deadname law - the government spins it "parents' bill of rights" and most media make it innocuous by calling it a "pronoun policy". But what this law actually does is to require teachers to deadname their trans pupils unless the school outs the student to the parents.)
Brandon Harder / Saskatoon Star Phoenix
Sask. pronoun consent law case can proceed following appeal court rulingAlso, here's some more good news:
Four of five judges of Saskatchewan's highest court say a lower court can decide whether what's known as the Parents' Bill of Rights violates constitutional rights, despite the use of the notwithstanding clause.
Saskatchewan’s highest court has ruled that the provincial government’s use of the notwithstanding clause does not shield its pronoun consent law from judicial scrutiny of whether the law limits certain constitutional rights.
As a result, a legal action brought by UR Pride Centre for Sexuality and Gender Diversity (UR Pride) may proceed in a lower court.
...the government argued in September 2024 that, given the invocation of the notwithstanding clause, the court no longer had jurisdiction to weigh in on whether the law violates sections of the Charter listed within the law’s text. They argued the case should have been dismissed for being moot and suggested the addition of a further constitutional challenge was an attempt to get around the government’s lawful actions, amounting to an abuse of process.
UR Pride disputed the government’s positions and argued there is nothing precluding the court from declaring whether the law violates certain constitutional rights.
The majority decision, written by SKCA Chief Justice Robert Leurer and representing the opinion of four of five judges who ruled on the case, dismissed the government’s appeal in all but one area. The decision says the portions of UR Pride’s action seeking to have the policy that preceded the law declared unconstitutional “must be struck for mootness.”
But the majority ruled that the Court of King’s Bench has the jurisdiction to decide whether the PBR (specifically, what is now Section 197.4 of the Education Act and concerns “Consent for change to gender identity”) limits rights under sections 7 and 15(1) of the Charter and to issue a declaration to that end.
Further, the SKCA majority decision concludes UR Pride may also seek a declaration that the section of law is of “no force and effect” based on a violation of Section 12 of the Charter, which protects Canadians from cruel and unusual treatment or punishment.
...Egale Canada, a LGBTQ+ rights organization providing legal support to UR Pride, circulated a statement saying it was pleased with the outcome of the appeal.
“The Court of Appeal’s decision upholds the rule of law in Canada and, in particular, reinforces the critical role of the courts in determining the constitutionality of government action.”
View on Threads
