After hearing arguments this week, the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal is considering the fate of the province's controversial Parents Bill of Rights law.The law, which requires students under 16 to get parental approval to use different gender-related names or pronouns at school, has sparked debate across Canada. In October 2023, Saskatchewan used the notwithstanding clause to bypass the Charter of Rights and Freedoms when passing the Parents Bill of Rights.On February 16, Court of King's Bench Justice Michael Megaw ruled that the University of Regina Pride (UR Pride), a Regina sexual minority group, could challenge the law's constitutionality. The province argued that the court no longer had jurisdiction.Over two days, the court heard from 11 groups, including Amnesty International, Canadian Civil Liberties Association, and the New Brunswick and Alberta governments.Milad Alishahi, a lawyer representing Saskatchewan's government, said Monday that using the notwithstanding clause does not mean avoiding scrutiny. Alishahi argued that it moves the debate from the court system to the democratic system."What's powerful about this case and the hearings before the Court of Appeal are how many interveners have come, representing such a diversity of interests, and it speaks to the implications of this case across the population," said Bennett Jensen, Legal Director of Egale Canada, which represents UR Pride."This is a case where there has been a judicial finding that the policy and law causes irreparable harm to vulnerable young people. We would hope that governments that would see the judicial finding [and] act in a way that's more protective of the interests of young people in their province."The Parents Bill of Rights has sparked intense debate about balancing parental rights while protecting vulnerable youth. Supporters say it gives parents more say in their children's education. Critics argue it could harm sexual minority students by forcing them to reveal their identity before they are ready.The court has not said when it will decide on the case.
After hearing arguments this week, the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal is considering the fate of the province's controversial Parents Bill of Rights law.The law, which requires students under 16 to get parental approval to use different gender-related names or pronouns at school, has sparked debate across Canada. In October 2023, Saskatchewan used the notwithstanding clause to bypass the Charter of Rights and Freedoms when passing the Parents Bill of Rights.On February 16, Court of King's Bench Justice Michael Megaw ruled that the University of Regina Pride (UR Pride), a Regina sexual minority group, could challenge the law's constitutionality. The province argued that the court no longer had jurisdiction.Over two days, the court heard from 11 groups, including Amnesty International, Canadian Civil Liberties Association, and the New Brunswick and Alberta governments.Milad Alishahi, a lawyer representing Saskatchewan's government, said Monday that using the notwithstanding clause does not mean avoiding scrutiny. Alishahi argued that it moves the debate from the court system to the democratic system."What's powerful about this case and the hearings before the Court of Appeal are how many interveners have come, representing such a diversity of interests, and it speaks to the implications of this case across the population," said Bennett Jensen, Legal Director of Egale Canada, which represents UR Pride."This is a case where there has been a judicial finding that the policy and law causes irreparable harm to vulnerable young people. We would hope that governments that would see the judicial finding [and] act in a way that's more protective of the interests of young people in their province."The Parents Bill of Rights has sparked intense debate about balancing parental rights while protecting vulnerable youth. Supporters say it gives parents more say in their children's education. Critics argue it could harm sexual minority students by forcing them to reveal their identity before they are ready.The court has not said when it will decide on the case.
