Latest news with #Parents'BillofRights
Toronto Sun
11-08-2025
- Politics
- Toronto Sun
Saskatchewan pronoun consent law case can proceed following appeal court ruling
The policy was later replaced by a law known as the Parents' Bill of Rights (PBR), or Bill 137, which requires students under the age of 16 to obtain parental or guardian consent for school staff to 'use the pupil's new gender-related preferred name or gender identity.' In his Feb. 16, 2024 decision, Court of King's Bench Justice Michael Megaw granted amendments, which allowed UR Pride to target the law that followed the policy, as well as to tack on a further constitutional challenge. Notwithstanding clause and argument The PBR uses what's known as the notwithstanding clause, which allows it to stand regardless of whether it violates certain sections of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, namely guarantees to life, liberty and personal security (Section 7), as well as equality (Section 15(1)). Private lawyers from the firm MLT Aikins representing 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 and the dissent 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, which preceded the law, declared unconstitutional 'must be struck for mootness.' But the majority ruled 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. Within the text of the PBR, Section 12 is not listed among the sections of the Charter that the law can operate in spite of. UR Pride's late addition of a challenge that the law violates this section is what the government argued was an abuse of process. The majority decision is careful to note that it is not concluding the provincial law limits of any of the aforementioned rights — that issue was not one the appeal judges were tasked with deciding. Further, it states that while the lower court has the power to examine whether the law limits rights under sections 7 and 15(1), 'there is no finding contained in this judgement that it will or should do so.' The dissenting decision, held by and written by SKCA Justice Neal Caldwell, concluded he would grant an order declaring that 'the courts are without jurisdiction to determine or declare' whether the provincial law violates sections 7 and 15(1) of the Charter. Further he would deny UR Pride the ability to amend its action to 'claim declaratory relief' in respect to Section 12. Reactions Reacting to the decision, a spokesperson sent an emailed statement on behalf the government. ' Our government will always protect parents' rights to be involved in their children's education, which is why we introduced Bill 137, The Parents' Bill of Rights . Those parental rights were enshrined using the notwithstanding clause of the Charter and that law remains in effect,' the statement reads. ' We are still reviewing the decision to determine next steps. As the matter remains before the Courts, we will not comment further.' A statement sent out on behalf of several Saskatchewan NDP opposition MLAs suggested the government had wasted ' thousands and thousands of taxpayer dollars' fighting the case. ' Instead of continuing this witch hunt and forcing taxpayers to foot the bill, the Sask. Party should repeal Bill 137 and focus on what really matters to Saskatchewan people: fixing healthcare, stopping crime, and lowering costs for families,' the NDP statement reads. 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.'
Ottawa Citizen
11-08-2025
- Politics
- Ottawa Citizen
Appeal judges rule court can decide whether Sask. pronoun consent law violates rights
In a split-decision, the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal (SKCA) has ruled a lower court can determine whether the provincial government's pronoun consent law violates certain constitutional rights. Article content Released Monday, the decision concerns an appeal brought by the government, which submits that a lower-court judge made errors in allowing a court case brought by the UR Pride Centre for Sexuality and Gender Diversity to continue in an amended form. Article content Article content Article content The legal action, launched by the non-profit organization in August of 2023, sought to halt the implementation of what was then a government policy and have it declared unconstitutional. Article content Article content The policy was later replaced by a law known as the Parents' Bill of Rights (PBR), or Bill 137, which requires students under the age of 16 to obtain parental or guardian consent for school staff to 'use the pupil's new gender-related preferred name or gender identity.' In his Feb. 16, 2024 decision, Court of King's Bench Justice Michael Megaw granted amendments, which allowed UR Pride to target the law that followed the policy, as well as to tack on a further constitutional challenge. The PBR uses what's known as the notwithstanding clause, which allows it to stand regardless of whether it violates certain sections of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, namely guarantees to life, liberty and personal security (Section 7), as well as equality (Section 15(1)). Private lawyers from the firm MLT Aikins representing the government argued in September 2024 that, given the invocation of the notwithstanding clause, the court no longer has jurisdiction to weigh in on whether the law violates sections of the Charter listed in the clause's invocation. They argued the case should have been dismissed for being moot and suggested the addition of a further constitutional challenge amounted to an attempt to get around the government's lawful actions and was 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, which preceded the law, declared unconstitutional 'must be struck for mootness.' But the majority ruled 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') violates 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. The PBR does not operate notwithstanding this section — this is the additional challenge the government argued was an abuse of process. The majority decision is careful to note that it is not concluding such violations have occurred. Further, it states that while the lower court has the power to examine whether the law violates sections 7 and 15(1), 'there is no finding contained in this judgement that it will or should do so.' The dissenting decision, held by and written by SKCA Justice Neal Caldwell, concluded he would grant an order declaring that 'the courts are without jurisdiction to determine or declare' whether the provincial law violates sections 7 and 15 of the Charter. Further he would deny UR Pride the ability to amend its action to 'claim declaratory relief' in respect to Section 12. Article content Article content Article content
Yahoo
28-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Indiana Attorney General hosted office hours at public library
TERRE HAUTE, Ind. (WTWO/WAWV)—Representatives with the Office of the Attorney General came to the Vigo County Public Library Tuesday. Representatives were available to constituents to answer questions on topics like scams, robocalls, unclaimed property, and recalls. There were also copies of the Attorney General's publications, such as the Parents' Bill of Rights and the Gun Owners' Bill of Rights, available. The Indiana Attorney General is responsible for providing legal representation to the state as well as protecting consumers from illicit business practices, investigating, and prosecuting Medicaid fraud. The release from the Attorney General's Office claims that the Attorney General reunites Hoosiers with approximately $1,000,000 each week. The mobile office hours took place at the Vigo County Public Library's Main Branch on Tuesday from 3:30 p.m. to 5:30 p.m. For those who couldn't attend but wanted to speak with representatives can reach Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita's office at 317-232-6201. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
13-04-2025
- Yahoo
6 new laws take effect in Ohio
Six new laws went into effect last week in Ohio. Below is a short, simplified summary of each new law. [DOWNLOAD: Free WHIO-TV News app for alerts as news breaks] House Bill 531 is also known as 'Braden's Law.' Braden's Law aims to ban sexual extortion by making it a felony. The law also requires service providers to obey warrants, or requests from parents or guardians, for electronic information within 30 days of a minor's death or face a fine. TRENDING STORIES: Cincinnati Reds Hall of Famer dies at 83 15-year-old arrested after deadly shooting near Ohio college campus Man accused of threatening person with gun inside Ohio restaurant arrested House Bill 8, which also goes by the Parents' Bill of Rights, bolsters the part of the parent or guardian in deciding when their child is ready to learn about sex. This law requires public schools to notify parents on student health and sex-ed materials. It also says that school districts will collaborate with religious entities for a specific time to offer the release time course in religion. House Bill 37 works to increase punishment for OVI and aggravated vehicular homicide. This law adds oral fluid to the list of controlled substance tests and adds that the court can submit evidence on the presence of the substance, not just the concentration level. It also imposes a mandatory prison sentence for a guilty plea to aggravated homicide of 12-20 years. There is also a raise in fines for OVI related offences. House Bill 206 covers school expulsion, community school closures and increases funding for the school choice program administration. This law allows superintendents to expel students for more than 180 days if they believe that student poses an imminent danger to others. The superintendent then must develop a plan for that student to follow, including an assessment of the student's danger to themselves and others by a psychiatrist, in order to be allowed back to school. It also raises the amount of money allocated to 200550, Foundation Funding - All Students from $4 million to over $8 million. House Bill 29 no longer allows driver's licenses to be suspended for failure to pay court fines or fees. Anyone that has had their license suspended in the past for these offenses are able to have it reinstated. Senate Bill 58 is also called the Second Amendment Financial Privacy Act. The law makes it illegal for companies to track firearms purchases within the state. It also bans the requirement of liability insurance or other fees on firearms. [SIGN UP: WHIO-TV Daily Headlines Newsletter]
Yahoo
09-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
All about six new laws in Ohio that go into effect today
COLUMBUS, Ohio (WCMH) – Multiple new Ohio laws are going into effect on Wednesday, including a statute that requires public schools to allow religious release time and another that increases penalties for drunk driving. On Jan. 8, Gov. Mike DeWine announced he signed 29 bills into law, all of which are set to go into effect on Wednesday. A list of six notable new laws can be found below. House Bill 8, dubbed the Parents' Bill of Rights, requires school districts to adopt a policy that allows students to attend off-premise religious classes during the school day. Formerly, districts were allowed to permit religious release time, but not required to. In Ohio, religious release time programs are legally allowed to teach public school students during the school day as long as they have parental permission, do not use school resources and teach off of school property. The new law does not change these requirements. How Gov. DeWine, Ohio parents feel about proposed bill to ban cellphones in schools Although districts are required to have a religious release time policy enacted by Wednesday, schools have until July 1 to implement most other newly required policies in the law. This includes a policy ensuring content depicting 'sexual concepts or gender ideology' is available for parents to review, in case they would like their children to opt out. Starting in July, staff will also be required to 'promptly notify' a parent if their child requests to be referred to with a name or pronouns that vary from their biological sex at school. Liv's Law increases the fines for the offense of Operating a Vehicle Under the Influence (OVI). Specifically, the statute adds an extra $190 compared with the previous law. For example, the minimum fine for a first-time offense rises from $375 to $565. Video shows disagreement between Columbus principal, police officer The law also increases the maximum fine for aggravated vehicular homicide to $25,000, which is $10,000 more than the law previously allowed. Additionally, Liv's Law allows police to collect oral fluid samples from drivers suspected of driving under the influence, while the law previously only permitted blood, urine and breath testing. Similar to the other kinds of testing used in the state, refusing an oral fluid swab can result in criminal charges. House Bill 206 allows public schools to indefinitely expel a student who poses an 'imminent and severe endangerment' to others' safety. Ohio law previously allowed schools to expel students up to 180 days – or one school year – for bringing a gun or knife to school, making a bomb threat or causing serious physical harm to another person. Students aged 16 years or older could be permanently expelled only if they were convicted in court of a serious criminal offense, according to the nonprofit Ohio Legal Help. The new law allows expulsions past 180 days for students who bring a firearm or knife to school, make a bomb threat, cause serious physical harm to someone at school, make a hitlist, create a threatening manifesto or share a menacing post on social media. Organization offering 'bounty' for removal of invasive trees in central Ohio Under the statute, after 180 days, a student's expulsion can be extended for 90 days at a time, with no limit on how many extensions are allowed. To be reinstated, students are required to undergo a psychological evaluation by a psychiatrist. After the expulsion period, the superintendent, along with a 'multidisciplinary team' they select, will decide whether to reinstate the student. To make a decision, school officials will determine if the student has shown 'sufficient rehabilitation,' while taking the psychological assessment into consideration. House Bill 531, named Braden's Law, classifies sextortion, short for sexual extortion, as a felony in Ohio. Sextortion occurs when an individual is blackmailed over intimate images. The law categorizes sextortion as a third-degree felony; however, the charge could be upgraded to a second- or first-degree felony depending on a variety of factors, including if the victim is a minor or disabled, and if the perpetrator is a repeat offender. In Ohio, a third-degree felony carries a prison sentence of nine months to three years, and a judge may impose a maximum fine of $10,000. A first-degree felony is punishable by 3-11 years in prison, and a maximum fine of $20,000. Will speeding fines in Ohio increase? The law also provides immunity from prosecution to victims who sent explicit images, and implements fines for telecommunications companies who fail to give parents or guardians access to a device that belonged to a deceased minor within 30 days. House Bill 29 ends the practice of suspending driver's licenses for failure to pay court fines or fees, along with some other minor offenses such as school truancy. Residents whose driver's license or motor vehicle registration was suspended for such offenses before the law was passed are able to have their license reinstated. The law also allows those who have had their license suspended for being in default on child support payments to prove that a suspended license prevents them from making the payments and they could be granted 'limited driving privileges.' Within 30 days, impacted individuals will be notified and provided instructions on how to get their license reinstated. Senate Bill 58 enacts the Second Amendment Financial Privacy Act, which bars credit card companies, banks and other institutions from categorizing or tracking firearm-related purchases. Mail carriers say new contract failed union wishes The law states companies also cannot compile lists of gun purchasers and share such information with third parties, including government agencies, unless required by law through due process. The statute also prohibits the state or any local government from requiring liability insurance to possess a firearm. The legislation was a proactive move, as no local governments in Ohio required firearm liability insurance for gun owners before the law's passage. Nationally, some jurisdictions such as New Jersey and San Jose, California, have enacted such mandates. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
