Supreme Court agrees to weigh in on Saskatchewan’s school pronoun case

REGINA — The Supreme Court of Canada granted leave Thursday to hear appeals in a challenge of Saskatchewan’s school pronoun law and the notwithstanding clause that underpins it.

No date has been set for the court to hear the cross appeals from the provincial government and UR Pride, a Regina-based LGBTQ+ group.

The law prevents children under 16 from changing their names or pronouns at school without parental consent, and Premier Scott Moe’s government invoked the Charter’s notwithstanding override clause to shield it from legal challenge.

Asked in the legislature about the high court agreeing to weigh in on the case, Moe told reporters: “It’s good.

“We asked for them to hear the appeal. They’re going to hear it, so we’ll see what the result of that is.”

The notwithstanding clause allows governments to override certain Charter rights but such declarations must be renewed every five years. The goal is to balance the authority of the courts with elected governments.

Saskatchewan Justice Minister Tim McLeod said the province used the override clause the way it was designed. “We’ve always contended Section 33 doesn’t trample on rights,” McLeod said.

“It’s there as a democratic right. It’s not there for judicial interpretation. It’s there for democratic use.”

The issue has been in court for more than two years.

It began in August 2023, when Moe’s Saskatchewan Party government passed the pronoun policy saying parents should be involved in decisions their children make at school.

Lawyers for UR Pride immediately challenged the rule in court, arguing it violates Charter rights and causes irreparable harm to gender diverse youth.

A month later, a judge granted an injunction to halt the rule, agreeing that it was important to review the matter carefully. Within weeks, the province put the policy into law and invoked the notwithstanding clause to back it up.

UR Pride argued the case should still be heard in court, despite use of the notwithstanding clause. The province argued the challenge should be thrown out because invoking the clause lawfully had settled the issue.

Saskatchewan’s Court of Appeal ruled earlier this year that the challenge can continue. It said while the court can’t strike down the legislation because of the notwithstanding clause, it can still weigh in and issue a declaratory judgment on whether the law violates constitutional rights.

Both sides appealed to the Supreme Court.

UR Pride and the province also asked the Supreme Court to expedite the case to be heard alongside a challenge of a Quebec law that prevents public sector workers from wearing religious symbols on the job. Quebec also invoked the notwithstanding clause in its law.

Adam Goldenberg, lead counsel for UR Pride, said he was pleased with Thursday’s decision that paves the way for a hearing before the top court.

He said the Saskatchewan and Quebec cases mark the first time since 1988 that the Supreme Court can consider whether the notwithstanding clause limits the court’s power to declare whether rights guaranteed in the Charter have been unreasonably limited.

He also said Saskatchewan should reconsider its approach.

“I wish more than anything that Mr. Moe and his ministers would back off here and stop bullying trans kids for the sake of their own political advantage,” Goldenberg said in an interview.

A similar battle is brewing in Alberta.

Premier Danielle Smith’s United Conservative government invoked the notwithstanding clause last week to shut down a provincewide teachers strike and shield back-to-work legislation from legal challenge.

The Alberta government, in a memo obtained by The Canadian Press in September, also indicates the province plans to use the notwithstanding clause in three pieces of legislation policing school pronouns, female sports and gender-affirming health care.

This report by The Canadian Press was first published Nov. 6, 2025.

— With files from Aaron Sousa in Edmonton

Jeremy Simes, The Canadian Press