The president of the Saskatchewan Teachers’ Federation expressed her optimism that the Supreme Court’s involvement in the pronoun law issue would bring clarity to the situation in the province. The law in question currently prohibits children under 16 from changing their names or pronouns at school without parental consent, a stance that Samantha Becotte believes puts educators in a challenging position.
“We continue to push for the government of Saskatchewan to repeal Bill 137 and ensure that teachers can exercise their professional autonomy,” stated Becotte. She emphasized the importance of allowing teachers to utilize their professional judgment in creating safe learning environments for all students in Saskatchewan.
Despite no scheduled hearing date, the Supreme Court will review cross appeals from the provincial government and UR Pride, an advocacy group for the 2SLGBTQ+ community in Regina. The Saskatchewan Party government, led by Premier Scott Moe, implemented the rule as a policy in 2023, arguing that parental involvement in their children’s school decisions is crucial.
Legal representatives for UR Pride contested the rule in court, claiming it infringes on Charter rights and harms gender diverse youth irreparably. Although an injunction was initially granted to halt the policy, the province later enshrined it into law and invoked the notwithstanding clause, granting the ability to override specific Charter rights for a five-year period.
Saskatchewan’s Court of Appeal ruled that the challenge could proceed despite the notwithstanding clause invocation, allowing for a potential declaratory judgment on the law’s constitutionality. Both UR Pride and the province have appealed the decision, seeking an expedited hearing at the Supreme Court alongside a separate Quebec law challenge regarding religious symbols in the workplace.
Adam Goldenberg, the lawyer representing UR Pride, emphasized that the case aims to hold the government accountable for defending the law with evidence, citing violations of Charter rights and harm to gender diverse youth. He stressed the importance of allowing young people to present their perspectives to the Supreme Court.
Louis-Philippe Lampron, a constitutional law professor at Université Laval in Quebec, highlighted the significance of the Supreme Court’s involvement in the case, noting the evolving landscape of Canadian law and the challenges posed by populist movements questioning the authority of courts.
In Alberta, a similar legal battle is unfolding, with Premier Danielle Smith’s government utilizing the notwithstanding clause to address a provincewide teachers’ strike and shield certain legislation from legal challenges. The government’s plans to apply the notwithstanding clause to laws regarding school pronouns, female sports, and gender-affirming health care have raised concerns and are expected to face legal scrutiny.
Premier Smith has indicated that a decision on invoking the notwithstanding clause has not been finalized, citing the potential lengthy court processes as a factor influencing the government’s stance on the issue.
