The head of the Saskatchewan Teachers’ Federation is optimistic that the Supreme Court will provide clarity on the province’s pronoun law, following the announcement that the court will review appeals related to it. This law currently prohibits minors under 16 from changing their names or pronouns at school without parental consent, a situation that the Federation’s president, Samantha Becotte, believes puts educators in a challenging position. Becotte emphasized the importance of repealing Bill 137 to grant teachers the professional autonomy needed to create inclusive learning environments for all students in Saskatchewan.
The scheduling of the court hearing for the cross appeals from the provincial government and UR Pride, a 2SLGBTQ+ group in Regina, is yet to be determined. The Saskatchewan Party government, led by Premier Scott Moe, implemented the rule as policy in 2023, arguing for parental involvement in their children’s educational decisions. UR Pride’s legal representatives contested the rule in court, asserting that it infringes on Charter rights and harms gender diverse youth irreparably.
Despite a temporary injunction halting the policy, the province later enshrined it into law using the notwithstanding clause to override specific Charter rights for five years. Saskatchewan’s Court of Appeal ruled that the legal challenge can proceed, allowing for a potential declaratory judgment on the law’s constitutionality. The province cited reasons for invoking the notwithstanding clause, but UR Pride can still argue for the law’s invalidation based on specific Charter sections not covered by the clause.
Both UR Pride and the province have appealed, seeking an expedited Supreme Court hearing, which could coincide with a challenge to a Quebec law prohibiting public sector employees from wearing religious symbols on the job, also using the notwithstanding clause. Adam Goldenberg, representing UR Pride, highlighted the violation of Charter rights and harm to gender diverse youth, emphasizing the need for the government to substantiate the law with evidence.
Louis-Philippe Lampron, a constitutional law expert at Université Laval, viewed the Supreme Court’s involvement in the case as a reflection of legal evolution in Canada and a response to populist movements challenging court authority. Lampron suggested that while the notwithstanding clause might be exploited to appease populists, court challenges could push legislatures to exercise caution in its use.
In Alberta, a similar legal battle is unfolding, with Premier Danielle Smith’s government invoking the notwithstanding clause to end a teachers’ strike and protect legislation regulating school pronouns, female sports, and gender-affirming healthcare. Legal challenges are anticipated for these laws, including one currently on hold regarding gender-affirming healthcare for minors. Smith’s government faces the decision of potentially invoking the notwithstanding clause if court resolutions are prolonged.