Latest news with #pronounpolicy
CTV News
a day ago
- Politics
- CTV News
Sask. court rules that legal challenge of province's pronoun policy can move forward
People hold signs while attending a rally against the Saskatchewan government's proposed legislation on pronoun policy in front of Saskatchewan legislature in Regina, on Tuesday, October 10, 2023. (THE CANADIAN PRESS/Heywood Yu) Saskatchewan's Court of Appeal has ruled that invoking the notwithstanding clause cannot stop a court from ruling whether a law violates the Charter. In a Monday decision on an appeal that saw a host of groups join as intervenors, the province's highest court determined a judge can hear the Charter case against Saskatchewan's controversial pronoun law — even if a King's Bench judge is barred from striking it down. Known as Bill 137 or the Parents' Bill of Rights, the legislation requires students under the age of 16 to have parental permission before they can change their pronouns or names in school. The court's decision will allow the UR Pride Centre for Sexuality and Gender Diversity to pursue whether the amendments to the province's education act violates two sections of the Charter, mainly the right to life, liberty, security of the person (Section 7) and equality rights (Section 15). The Government of Saskatchewan first introduced a pronoun policy in August of 2023 – which was legally challenged by UR Pride. The University of Regina-based centre requested and was granted a court injunction which halted the use of the policy. In response, the Government of Saskatchewan recalled the legislature in October of 2023 to enshrine the policy into law and stop the court challenge. In response, the Government of Saskatchewan recalled the legislature to enshrine the policy into law and stop the court challenge. Utilizing Section 33 of the Charter, otherwise known as the 'notwithstanding clause,' the government passed Bill 137 amid heavy criticism from advocacy groups and the Opposition NDP. UR Pride amended its legal challenge to say the law violated Section 12 of the Charter, which protects Canadians from cruel and unusual treatment or punishment. In February of 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 original policy was no longer in place, and the law was protected by the notwithstanding clause, the question of whether the law violates the Charter rights of children was essentially irrelevant. Since the provincial government's constitutional maneuver to sidestep the ability of a court to strike the pronoun law down, the government's lawyers have argued it would be an abuse of process for a court to even hear the case or make a judgment on the potential Charter issues. During the two days of arguments, the Court of Appeal panel heard from nine interveners that supported a decision to continue the legal challenge against the bill – ranging from the Canadian Civil Liberties Association to the John Howard Society. The Governments of Alberta and New Brunswick served as intervenors on behalf of the provincial government. Monday's verdict will allow UR Pride's challenge to be heard at the Court of King's Bench at a later date — even though the law will remain in place regardless of what the court rules due to the protections of the notwithstanding clause. Reaction Egale Canada, which launched the legal challenge alongside UR Pride, shared its enthusiasm over the court's decision Monday. 'At the base of this case is a government policy that the Court of King's Bench found – on the basis of expert evidence – would cause irreparable harm to vulnerable young people in Saskatchewan," the organization shared. 'Rather than reverse course, the Government of Saskatchewan has doubled down at every turn, using the notwithstanding clause to intentionally limit the constitutional rights of youth, and implement a law that will cause them harm.' Egale ended off by urging the government to end its defence of 'harmful legislation' and to prioritize creating safe and welcome school environments. Organizations from across the province shared similar sentiments following the decision. 'Today sends a clear message: rights matter, children matter, and the Sask. Party government cannot simply legislate away accountability,' CUPE Sask. president Kent Peterson said in a statement. 'Instead of a serious response to tariffs, wildfires, or understaffed hospitals, the Sask. Party keeps fighting students and educators in court. Wasting hundreds of thousands - if not millions - of taxpayer dollars on this fight is bizarre,' SLF president Lori Johb said in her own news release.
CBC
a day ago
- 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.
CTV News
a day ago
- Politics
- CTV News
Sask. court to deliver decision on legal challenge against province's pronoun policy
People hold signs while attending rally against the Saskatchewan government's proposed legislation on pronoun policy in front of Saskatchewan legislature in Regina, on Tuesday, October 10, 2023. THE CANADIAN PRESS/Heywood Yu Saskatchewan's Court of Appeal is expected to deliver a decision today, in a matter concerning the Ministry of Education, UR Pride and the province's pronoun policy. Saskatchewan's highest court will determine if a legal challenge against the province's Parents' Bill of Rights can continue. A panel of five justices reserved its decision after hearing closing arguments last September. Known as Bill 137 or the Parents' Bill of Rights, the legislation requires students under the age of 16 to have parental permission before they can change their pronouns or names in school. The Government of Saskatchewan first introduced a pronoun policy in August of 2023. UR Pride, a LGBTQ2S+ advocacy organization based in Regina, legally challenged the policy – arguing it violated the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. UR Pride requested and was granted a court injunction which halted the use of the policy. In response, the Government of Saskatchewan recalled the legislature to enshrine the policy into law and stop the court challenge. Utilizing the notwithstanding clause, the government passed Bill 137 amid heavy criticism from advocacy groups and the Opposition NDP. During the two days of arguments, the Court of Appeal panel heard from nine interveners that supported a decision to continue the legal challenge against the bill – ranging from the Canadian Civil Liberties Association to the John Howard Society. The Governments of Alberta and New Brunswick served as intervenors on behalf of the provincial government. The court is set to deliver its decision at 10 a.m. -With files from Caitlin Brezinski and Donovan Maess
CBC
a day ago
- Politics
- CBC
Appeal court set to deliver decision on Sask. pronoun policy
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. The decision is expected to be delivered shortly after 10 a.m.
CTV News
a day ago
- Politics
- CTV News
Sask. court hears arguments from province, UR Pride in pronoun law appeal
WATCH: Donovan Maess has the details on the first day of proceedings of the pronoun policy appeal launched by the Sask. Gov't. The Saskatchewan Government is in the province's highest court fighting to prevent a Court of King's Bench judge from determining if its Parents' Bill of Rights actually violates the Charter. In August 2023, the government announced a policy requiring students under 16 years of age to have parental permission before they change their pronouns or names in school. LGBTQ2S+ advocates then requested and were granted a court injunction which halted the use of the policy. In response, the Sask Party government enacted the use of the notwithstanding clause into Bill 137, better known as the Parents' Bill of Rights in attempt to stop the court challenge. Download the CTV News app to get breaking news alerts sent to your device In February, Justice Michael Megaw ruled UR Pride should still get the chance to have the court review the law's impacts under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Megaw's decision would allow UR Pride and the government to present all their evidence and arguments in court, although the invocation of Section 33 of the Charter, also known as the notwithstanding clause, means a judge could not strike it down. The government is making the case that its use of Section 33 means that since the court has no power to strike the law down, it should not be allowed to review whether the law violates the Charter. Three Arguments The government's appeal relied on three main arguments: There was an error of law for allowing the challenge to proceed, the issue is moot because of the use of the notwithstanding clause and UR Pride is abusing the judicial process. Government counsel believed Justice Megaw made an error of law in allowing UR Pride to amend its application to include a constitutional challenge. 'Jurisdiction of the court is removed when the notwithstanding clause in invoked,' lawyer Milad Alishahi argued in court Monday. 'The ability of the court completely to deal with the question [whether a law violates a charter provision] doesn't exist.' The province also believes the challenge is moot because of the use of the clause. 'The learning judge made an error of law in failing to find the declaration sought to find Sections 7 and 15 [of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms] raised in the issue,' said government lawyer Bennet Misskey. 'To determine whether a matter is moot, it is necessary to assess what practical remedies are available to both parties.' Court of Appeal Justice Georgina Jackson challenged Misskey's comment. 'Would it have been better for the learn judge not to have passed on the issue of jurisdiction and focused on the issue of mootness?' she asked. 'Certainly,' Misskey replied. 'Had the court found they had jurisdiction to issue some sort of declaration it was incumbent to then address the question of mootness.' 'By deferring the issue, it almost renders the question of mootness itself in a certain way,' he added. Finally, lawyers say UR Pride is abusing the court process in trying to hold the government to account. 'It's such a different case,' Deron Kuski said. 'They are saying they want a decision that will hold the government to account.' Kuski added he believes it is not up to the court to allow the process. 'The court should not concern itself with the issue of accountability,' he said. 'Public accountability comes at the ballot box, not from the judiciary.' UR Pride on defense For over a year, UR Pride and multiple other advocate groups have been on the offensive in trying to halt the pronoun policies included in the Parents' Bill of Rights. But now, they are defending the decision to allow their connotational challenge. 'The issue of this case from day zero has been whether this law is constitutional,' said Adam Goldenberg, co-counsel for UR Pride. 'I have real concerns with the suggestion its abusive and improper for a party challenging the constitutionality of a law to seek the determination whether the law is.' 'The government has taken the position the effect of section 33 is unaffected by the rights of the groups in question,' Chief Justice Robert Leurer said. 'Are being asked to decide an issue on a factual pattern?' 'No one is questioning the legislative policy in this case,' Goldenberg said. 'You can't look at which rights are being overridden and whether it was a wise or unwise legislative choice.' 'As long as the full requirements are met, the law operates,' he added. 'None of that is being disputed in this case.' Goldenberg went on to submit there is a real need to inform the Saskatchewan electorate and elected officials of the provisions which the government has sought to infringe with the use of the notwithstanding clause. 'The purpose of every charter claim is ultimately to educate the legislatures who have the power to change the law of their constitutional obligations,' he said. 'None of that is improper. None of that is abusive.' Setting the precedent The looming appeal decision stands to set the precedent for similar cases across the country. 'The court has an important role when the government chooses to violate the charter rights of young people or any part of the population,' said UR Pride co-counsel and Director of Legal for Egale Canada Bennett Jensen. Both the provinces of New Brunswick and Alberta have enacted similar pronoun policy laws and were granted intervener status in this case. Representatives from both provinces made submissions Monday in support of the Sask Party government's position. Legal battles in each province are also expected in the near future. Sask. Minister of Justice and Attorney General Bronwyn Eyre asserted the government's support for parental rights. 'It is important to include parents in these crucial decisions,' she told reporters at a media conference in Saskatoon Monday. 'We've always been clear we'll use every tool at our disposal to do that.' 'The notwithstanding clause is an integral part of the Charter of Rights [and Freedoms] and was long fought for … as a means for a balance between the legislative and judicial [branches],' Eyre added. Jensen responded by saying it is disappointing to see the Saskatchewan government continue to defend policies he says target the province's most vulnerable. 'When political leaders are telling young people it's not okay to be themselves, that it's not okay to be different at school, that has a devastating effect on young people,' he said. 'The fact the policy has continued to be in effect this whole time continues to cause real harm across the population.' More arguments in support of UR Pride's challenge will continue Tuesday. -With files from Rory MacLean
