Latest news with #SaskatchewanCourtofAppeal
Ottawa Citizen
2 days ago
- 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
Global News
2 days ago
- Politics
- Global News
Saskatchewan Appeal Court says challenge of province's pronoun law can continue
The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal says a challenge of the province's school pronoun law can continue. It has granted, in part, the government's appeal of a decision that allowed the challenge. But the court says a judge has jurisdiction to determine whether the law limits Charter rights. The law, which came into force in 2023, requires parental consent if children under 16 want to change their names or pronouns at school. Lawyers for the LGBTQ+ group UR Pride brought forward the challenge, arguing the law causes irreparable harm to gender diverse youth and its case should move ahead. Get weekly health news Receive the latest medical news and health information delivered to you every Sunday. Sign up for weekly health newsletter Sign Up By providing your email address, you have read and agree to Global News' Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy The government argued its use of the notwithstanding clause should end the challenge. 1:36 Sask. government lawyers argue pronoun law is in best interest for gender diverse children Nearly a dozen groups intervened in the appeal, including the government of Alberta, which argued in favour of Saskatchewan. Story continues below advertisement Alberta passed a law last year requiring students 15 and younger have parental consent to change their names or pronouns. Students 16 and 17 don't need consent but their parents have to be notified. New Brunswick also had a pronoun policy but Premier Susan Holt revised it after she was elected in 2024. More to come.
Global News
2 days ago
- Politics
- Global News
Fight over Saskatchewan school pronoun law to resume in court Monday
The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal is expected to rule today on the province's appeal of a decision to allow a challenge of its school pronoun law. A judge ruled last year that the court challenge could continue, despite the government's use of the notwithstanding clause. The law, which came into force in 2023, requires parental consent if children under 16 want to change their names or pronouns at school. Lawyers for the LGBTQ+ group UR Pride brought forward the challenge, arguing the law causes irreparable harm to gender diverse youth and its case should move ahead. The government has argued its use of the notwithstanding clause to bring the law into force should end the court challenge. Nearly a dozen groups intervened in the appeal, including the government of Alberta, which argued in favour of Saskatchewan. Story continues below advertisement 1:41 UR Pride fights Saskatchewan's pronoun law Alberta passed a law last year requiring students 15 and younger have parental consent to change their names or pronouns. Students 16 and 17 don't need consent but their parents have to be notified. Get weekly health news Receive the latest medical news and health information delivered to you every Sunday. Sign up for weekly health newsletter Sign Up By providing your email address, you have read and agree to Global News' Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy New Brunswick also had a pronoun policy but Premier Susan Holt revised it after she was elected in 2024. UR Pride amended its challenge and argues Saskatchewan's law violates Section 12 of the Charter, which is the right to be free from cruel and unusual treatment. The province cited other sections when it invoked the notwithstanding clause. Former Justice Minister Bronwyn Eyre said last year the Saskatchewan Party government wouldn't hesitate to use the notwithstanding clause again.
CBC
2 days ago
- Politics
- CBC
Regina court set to deliver decision on pronoun policy legal challenge
The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal is set to release its decision in the Saskatchewan Minister of Education v. UR Pride Centre for Sexuality and Gender Diversity on Monday, settling a years-long dispute over the Saskatchewan government's pronoun policy. In August 2023 the Saskatchewan government announced that it was requiring parental consent for children under the age of 16 who want to use a different name or pronoun at school. Later that month the UR Pride Centre for Sexuality and Gender Diversity filed an originating application against the new policy, requesting a judge strike down the changes. It said the policy was not justifiable under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and denied gay and gender-diverse students "a safe and welcoming educational environment in which to be themselves." UR Pride also argued that the policy outed children who weren't ready to express their new identity to their parents, and that that would potentially put them at risk of harm.
Winnipeg Free Press
3 days ago
- Politics
- Winnipeg Free Press
Court to rule on appeal of challenge to Saskatchewan pronoun law
REGINA – The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal is expected to rule today on the province's appeal of a decision to allow a challenge of its school pronoun law. A judge ruled last year that the court challenge could continue, despite the government's use of the notwithstanding clause. The law, which came into force in 2023, requires parental consent if children under 16 want to change their names or pronouns at school. Lawyers for the LGBTQ+ group UR Pride brought forward the challenge, arguing the law causes irreparable harm to gender diverse youth and its case should move ahead. The government has argued its use of the notwithstanding clause to bring the law into force should end the court challenge. Nearly a dozen groups intervened in the appeal, including the government of Alberta, which argued in favour of Saskatchewan. Alberta passed a law last year requiring students 15 and younger have parental consent to change their names or pronouns. Students 16 and 17 don't need consent but their parents have to be notified. New Brunswick also had a pronoun policy but Premier Susan Holt revised it after she was elected in 2024. UR Pride amended its challenge and argues Saskatchewan's law violates Section 12 of the Charter, which is the right to be free from cruel and unusual treatment. The province cited other sections when it invoked the notwithstanding clause. Former Justice Minister Bronwyn Eyre said last year the Saskatchewan Party government wouldn't hesitate to use the notwithstanding clause again. This report by The Canadian Press was first published Aug. 11, 2025.
