This case is about discrimination against trans, non-binary, and gender-diverse students.
Update: After LEAF was granted leave to intervene in this case, the Saskatchewan government turned its policy into law, and invoked the notwithstanding clause to shield the law from Charter challenge. Despite this action, UR Pride has decided to move ahead with its court case. LEAF will update this page once we have determined our next steps in our intervention. No matter what, LEAF will work alongside community allies to fight for the rights of trans, non-binary, and gender-diverse youth in the province.
Facts
Weeks before the start of the school year, without notice or consultation, the Saskatchewan government adopted a policy called “Use of Preferred First Name and Pronouns by Students.” The Policy imposes specific requirements for students under the age of 16 who “wish to change their pronouns and/or preferred first name to align with their gender identity”. The Policy only permits school personnel to refer to a trans, non-binary, or gender-diverse student under the age of 16 by their proper name and pronouns if their parent consents. It also requires school personnel to seek parental consent when a student asks that their “preferred name, gender identity, and/or gender expression be used.”
The UR Pride Centre for Sexuality and Gender Diversity commenced a Charter challenge to the Policy before the Saskatchewan Court of King’s Bench. It argues that the Policy limits the ss. 7 (security of the person) and 15 (equality) Charter rights of trans, non-binary, and gender-diverse students under the age of 16.
The Saskatchewan government then enshrined the policy in law, even though the notwithstanding clause has made it impossible for the Court to strike down the law on the basis of either of those rights.
Arguments
LEAF initially planned to argue that, for a substantive equality approach to s. 15, the Court must consider the specific impact of the Policy on trans and non-binary students. The Court must also consider the best interests of the child, and the prospect of family violence or other forms of abuse. There is a need for appropriate limits on parental control of children to oppose harms to trans and non-binary children, and to promote their best interests.
Outcome
LEAF is working with its counsel and community partners to determine next steps in this case.
LEAF is grateful to Morgan Camley, Raphael Eghan, Barbara Grossman, and Chloe Snider of Dentons Canada LLP, counsel to LEAF in this case.