Court to consider 11 interveners in Sask.’s pronoun bill appeal

Article content

A panel comprising three Court of Appeal justices has heard from 11 entities seeking intervener status in the Saskatchewan government’s appeal to quash a legal challenge against its pronoun consent law.

The number of prospective interveners has grown steadily since the court challenge was filed four months ago.

Legal counsel for all applicants appeared during a short hearing in Regina on Wednesday, including those who represent the governments of Alberta and New Brunswick.

Article content

The provinces share similar policies and have thrown their support behind Saskatchewan in arguing it was improper for a King’s Bench trial judge to allow an amended Charter challenge against the Parents’ Bill of Rights to continue despite invocation of Section 33, the notwithstanding clause.

The bill requires students under 16 to have parent or guardian consent to use a new gender-related preferred name or set of pronouns in schools.

UR Pride Centre for Sexuality and Gender Diversity filed a legal challenge against the policy last year, alleging it violates sections 2, 7, 12 and 15 of Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms and Saskatchewan’s Human Rights Code. Court of King’s Bench Justice Michael Megaw allowed the litigation to continue in February on the grounds of declaratory relief, prompting an appeal from the province.

New Brunswick introduced a similar consent policy before Saskatchewan that is currently being challenged in court by the Canadian Civil Liberties Association (CCLA). Alberta adopted its policy in February.

Also seeking status in the appeal is CCLA, along with child rights advocate Justice for Children and Youth, the John Howard Society, the Advocates’ Society, the Trial Lawyers Association of British Columbia, and a joint application from the Canadian Union of Public Employees, Saskatchewan Federation of Labour and Canadian Teachers’ Federation.

Article content

Article content

Only one intervener application was contested Wednesday by UR Pride’s lead co-counsel, Adam Goldenberg. It belonged to Our Duty Canada, which is self-described online as “a support network for parents of children of any age experiencing transgender ideation.”

The group is a chapter in an international coalition for parents who oppose gender ideology or transitional treatments for youth. Our Duty Canada has also sought intervener status in CCLA’s legal challenge in New Brunswick.

Lawyer Paul Jaffe said his client seeks friend-of-the-court status as Our Duty Canada can provide insight from “parents whose own direct experiences and observations would be impacted by what’s being advanced by UR Pride.”

“They perceive the real harm that arises, in a real way, in the effects of disenfranchising of parents from having what should be a close, honest and open relationship with their children,” Jaffe said. “Nobody else is advancing that argument, and certainly not as strongly as my client.”

Article content

Jaffe rejected claims by Goldenberg that these arguments are “inflammatory” and would “transform the court into a political arena.”

“This whole issue of gender ideology in schools, and where proper limits may be, is a political issue and we can’t get away from that,” said Jaffe. “As much as we want to confine our attention to points of law … this is an ideological issue.”

Goldenberg countered that these arguments are out of scope for the case at hand, as they are not addressed by Saskatchewan’s draft factum and should be denied because “interveners are not to raise new issues.”

Jaffe said his client is seeking to “provide context,” not add arguments. Goldenberg countered that context “would be perfectly suited” for the original legal challenge, currently on hold while the appeal is heard.

Also heard by the court was opposition to a request that special conditions be imposed on Alberta and New Brunswick, if granted intervener status.

UR Pride asked the court to limit both to withhold arguments on the issue of the challenge’s “mootness” that would “overlap” with those already put forward by the Government of Saskatchewan.

Article content

Milad Alishadi, co-counsel from the firm MLT Aikins, opposed the conditions as these are the only interveners “also able to invoke the notwithstanding clause, an issue at the heart of this.”

A request has been made for the appeal to be heard by a panel of five justices, instead of the standard three.

Chief Justice Robert Leurer advised that the relevant parties will be notified if that request is granted ahead of the hearing, set for September. He also reserved a written decision on interveners until a later date.

lkurz@postmedia.com

The Regina Leader-Post has created an Afternoon Headlines newsletter that can be delivered daily to your inbox so you are up to date with the most vital news of the day. Click here to subscribe.

With some online platforms blocking access to the journalism upon which you depend, our website is your destination for up-to-the-minute news, so make sure to bookmark leaderpost.com and sign up for our newsletters so we can keep you informed. Click here to subscribe.

Article content