Saskatchewan has been given the go-ahead to appeal a court decision that permitted the launch of a lawsuit targeting the province’s pronoun policy.
The policy required schools to have parental consent before students under 16 years of age could change their names or pronouns, Premier Scott Moe announced last August. The policy has since been rescinded and replaced with the Parents’ Bill of Rights.
LGBT peer support group UR Pride, which filed the lawsuit against the provincial policy, petitioned the court to amend the case to also challenge the new law. The group has now consented to the government’s appeal, a spokesperson for Saskatchewan’s appeal court told The Epoch Times.
Lawyers for the organization previously told The Epoch Times they would oppose both the appeal and the stay of proceedings.“The Saskatchewan Court of King’s Bench has already found that the Saskatchewan government’s pronoun policy (now enacted into legislation) will inflict irreparable harm on vulnerable young people,” a Feb. 27 statement emailed to The Epoch Times said. “In response to that ruling, the government took the unprecedented step of using the notwithstanding clause to limit the rights of gender diverse students. The Court has again found in our favour — that our case must proceed.”
The case was scheduled for an appeal hearing April 8, which will now become a pre-hearing conference, the court said.
Premier Scott Moe’s government has also asked for a stay of proceedings. The move gives Mr. Moe’s government the chance to appeal the Feb. 16 court decision that allowed the case to move forward.
UR Pride Centre filed a legal challenge after the policy was announced. The group says it violated students’ charter freedoms, particularly the right to life, liberty, and security of the person and the right to equality. Justice M.T. Megaw granted a temporary injunction against the policy last September.
The government argued the case is no longer relevant because the policy has been replaced by legislation that is protected by the notwithstanding clause. Justice Megaw disagreed.
