Latest news with #URPride
CTV News
6 days ago
- Politics
- CTV News
UR Pride says work ‘isn't finished' in response to legal challenge moving forward
WATCH: Following a court of appeal ruling allowing a challenge against Sask's pronoun law to proceed, UR Pride says it's a win, but their work isn't finished.
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
Global News
11-08-2025
- 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.
CBC
11-08-2025
- Politics
- CBC
Appeal court rules litigation of Sask. pronoun policy can continue
Saskatchewan's Court of Appeal has ruled a challenge of the province's pronoun policy can continue. On Monday, the Court of Appeal found that litigation of the policy, which requires parental consent for children under 16 years of age who want to use a different name or pronoun at school, can be heard at the Court of King's Bench. The decision clears the UR Pride Centre for Sexuality and Gender Diversity to pursue whether the amendments to Saskatchewan's Education Act violates sections of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, limiting the right to life, liberty and security of the person (Section 7), and equality rights (Section 15(1)). UR Pride, a centre at the University of Regina, can also seek a declaration that the amendments violate a section of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms related to cruel and unusual treatment or punishment (Section 12). However, part of the application seeking to have the policy declared unconstitutional must be struck, the Court of Appeal ruled. The legal battle goes back to August 2023, when the Saskatchewan government announced the pronoun consent policy. Later that month UR Pride filed an 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. The province then passed The Parents' Bill of Rights in October 2023, writing the policy into law and employing the notwithstanding clause — a rarely used measure that lets governments override certain Charter rights for five years — to allow the law to stand even if it violated sections 2, 7 and 15 of Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The province then applied to have UR Pride's challenge dismissed. In response, UR Pride amended its legal challenge to say that the law violates Section 12 of the Charter, which protects Canadians against cruel and unusual treatment or punishment. The province did not name Section 12 when it invoked the notwithstanding clause. In February 2024, a Court of King's Bench judge ruled that UR Pride's amended challenge should be heard. The province appealed that decision, arguing that since the Saskatchewan government rescinded the original policy and the law is protected by the notwithstanding clause, the law will still stand regardless of what the court finds in the challenge. The Court of Appeal heard arguments over two days in September 2024, then reserved its decision. Now, the decision given Monday has paved the way for UR Pride's challenge to be heard.
