Saskatchewan’s Court of Appeal reserved its decision in September 2024 after hearing arguments about whether a constitutional challenge to the province’s school pronoun law could continue. The hearing addressed the effect of the notwithstanding clause, not a final determination of every claim about the policy.
The law required parental consent
Saskatchewan’s Parents’ Bill of Rights required consent before a school could use a new gender-related preferred name or pronoun for a student under 16. The government enacted it in 2023 after an earlier policy was challenged.
Supporters described the rule as parental involvement; opponents said it could expose some transgender or non-binary students to harm.
UR Pride brought the original challenge
UR Pride Centre for Sexuality and Gender Diversity argued that the policy and later law violated Charter protections. A Court of King’s Bench judge permitted parts of the case to proceed, including a claim under section 12 concerning cruel and unusual treatment or punishment.
The government appealed the ruling rather than waiting for a full trial on the evidence.
The notwithstanding clause shaped the dispute
Section 33 of the Charter allows legislatures to declare that a law operates despite specified Charter rights for renewable five-year periods. Saskatchewan used the clause for sections 2, 7 and 15.
Section 12 is not among the rights that section 33 can override, which made the scope and characterization of the remaining claim important.
The government challenged justiciability
Provincial lawyers argued that the lower court should not continue examining claims effectively covered by the override. They said the legislation and declaration narrowed what a court could remedy.
A court reviewing that argument must separate political disagreement with a law from legal questions that remain within judicial authority.
The challengers defended continued review
UR Pride maintained that use of section 33 did not erase the judicial role or immunize rights outside the clause. The organization sought an evidentiary hearing capable of examining the law’s effects on young people.
Permission to litigate is not a finding that the claim will ultimately succeed.
Interveners presented broader perspectives
Organizations participated to address constitutional interpretation, child welfare, parental authority and equality. Interveners assist with legal arguments but do not replace the parties or introduce an unrelated lawsuit.
Their presence reflected the national significance of defining judicial review after a legislature invokes section 33.
A reserved decision is routine
When an appeal court reserves judgment, the judges take time to consider submissions and issue written reasons. It does not indicate which party persuaded the panel, and Saskatchewan Courts does not promise a publication date for most reserved decisions.
Headlines should avoid treating the lack of an immediate ruling as a procedural victory.
The appeal concerned the path to a merits hearing
The central issue was whether and how the challenge could continue despite the override. Questions about educational practice, student safety and family relationships remained important, but the appeal was bounded by constitutional procedure.
Accurate reporting therefore distinguishes allegation, appeal and final judgment. Until written reasons were released, the only safe conclusion was that the panel had heard the parties and taken its decision under consideration.
