Quebec’s Superior Court listened to arguments on Friday in a case involving a high school teacher who claims her rights under the Charter were violated when she was instructed to conceal a student’s gender identity from their parents. The teacher, referred to as A.B. in court documents, asserts that she was directed to use masculine pronouns for the student in class and feminine ones when communicating with the student’s parents, under the threat of losing her job in 2023. To protect the student’s identity, the court has kept the teacher’s name confidential.
Challenging a provincial education policy introduced in 2021, the teacher has taken legal action against the government to invalidate a rule allowing students aged 14 and above to change their name and pronouns at school with or without parental consent. The policy, implemented by the provincial Education Ministry, aims to promote inclusivity for individuals with diverse sexual orientations, gender identities, and expressions, emphasizing the importance of confidentiality.
Expressing discomfort with the provincial policy, the teacher stated that it made her uneasy to discuss the student with the parents. She also alleges that the school’s instructions infringed on her freedom of conscience and expression. The court is currently deliberating on whether certain witnesses in the case can remain anonymous, pushing the boundaries of public interest.
Legal clinics Juritrans and Our Duty Canada have intervened in the case. Our Duty lawyers gathered affidavits from parents of transgender children nationwide and two adult women who reversed their gender transition after starting it in high school. The teacher’s lawyer, Olivier Séguin, argued for maintaining the anonymity of all affiants in court documents to prevent them from retracting their statements, as some requested their testimonies to be confidential for lawyers’ eyes only.
According to Séguin, the affiants are concerned about their relationships with their children, whose medical backgrounds and psychosocial information are detailed in the testimonies, fearing negative repercussions due to the sensitive nature of the topic. In contrast, Juritrans opposes this approach, pointing out that a judge had already granted limited confidentiality for all transgender minors involved in the case.
Representing the interests of transgender youths and students, Juritrans intervened in the case to safeguard their constitutional rights affected by the policy challenged by the teacher. The clinic aims to prevent the instrumentalization of personal information without consent or granting anonymity to protect from personal discomfort during court proceedings. They argue that such actions contradict the principles of public interest and an open court system.
The judge’s ruling is anticipated in a few weeks, with no set date yet for the broader case arguments.