REGINA - A decision was issued by the Court of Appeal regarding the applicants in UR Pride’s fight with the provincial government over Bill 137, a controversial piece of legislation known as the “parents bill of rights”, that aims to protect the “rights” of parents in the classroom.
One major component of the legislation states that if the pupil is under 16 years of age, (parents must) provide consent before the pupil’s teachers and other employees of the school use the pupil’s new gender-related preferred name or gender identity at school. The law also extends to sex education in the classroom, and the reporting of student performance in school to parents.
The decision on applicants came down as follows. Eleven applications were granted, including those from the Attorney’s General of New Brunswick and Alberta and various civil liberties and advocacy groups.
One application, from “Our Duty Canada”, was dismissed due to insufficient evidence of interest in the constitutional issues at hand. “Our Duty Canada” is an advocacy group for parents of trans youth looking to provide parents with resources. The “ODC” website asks the question, “Do your instincts tell you that a ‘sex-change’ is an extreme solution for a problem which probably exists in the mind?” Stating that “Our duty is to bring our children to adulthood healthy in body and mind.”
The court decision on applicants also gives a clear timeline for appeals to be filed – stating “the Intervenors are entitled to file a factum of not exceeding 15 pages in length, which must be served on the parties and all other Intervenors and then filed with the Registrar by no later than 4:00 p.m. on August 16, 2024.”
Both UR PRIDE and the Saskatchewan Governments are entitled to file a factum not exceeding 40 pages in length replying to the factums filed by the Intervenors and addressing Canada (Attorney General) v Power, which must be filed with the Registrar by no later than 4 p.m. on Sept. 6.
The appeal involves a constitutional challenge to Saskatchewan’s policy on student name and pronoun use, invoking the notwithstanding clause of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Earlier this year the Court of King’s Bench decided a constitutional challenge from UR pride could proceed. Groups opposed to the bill say this legislation violates the rights of gender and sexually diverse youth – a position that was upheld and supported by the province’s advocate for children and youth.
This story has been amended to indicate the Court of Appeals issued the ruling on applicants in pronoun policy case, not the Court of King's Bench.
