Alberta joins Saskatchewan in legal battle to defend parental rights

It would seem the Government of Alberta isn’t only standing shoulder to shoulder with other provinces on the federal stage in opposition to the carbon tax, but also now in the courts of law on another issue, as Alberta is set to intervene on a case in Saskatchewan in defence of parental rights.

In August 2023, the University of Regina Pride Centre for Sexuality and Gender Diversity (UR Pride) filed a lawsuit claiming that Bill 137 would violate children’s right to life, liberty and happiness. On September 28, Saskatchewan’s Court of King’s bench granted them an injunction to suspend Bill 137 until hearings were conducted.

The Government of Saskatchewan responded by passing Bill 137 shortly thereafter by invoking the notwithstanding clause to effectively disregard the court's ruling for five years.

Despite the use of the notwithstanding clause, on January 10 and 11 the court heard arguments from both the government and UR Pride and on February 16, Justice Michael Megaw ruled that UR Pride's constitutional challenge would be allowed.

The Government of Alberta, which recently brought forth its own parental rights policies, plans to file an application to bar the Saskatechwan Court of King’s Bench from reviewing the constitutionality of that province's Bill 137, the Parents’ Bill of Rights.

Alberta and Saskatchewan justice ministers Mickey Amery and Bronwyn Eyre, respectively, issued a joint statement affirming both provinces' commitment to affirming, “the key figures in children’s lives are their parents,” adding that, “notifying parents and requiring their consent before a child’s name or pronouns can be changed in schools, and before classroom discussions about gender identity and other sensitive subjects occur, ensures that the parent-child relationship is respected and paramount.”

In addition to expressing concerns over the potential undermining of parental rights that may result should the UR Pride challenge be allowed to proceed, the joint statement also expressed concern about the court's apparent flippancy (my words not theirs) towards their invocation of the notwithstanding clause and considerations brought forth from the government.

Their statement reads: “This case has the potential to impact not only parental rights across Canada, but also the application of the Parliamentary Supremacy Clause, which has been an integral piece of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Constitution of Canada since 1982.”

Eyre added, “This is really an issue of parliamentary sovereignty. There is a very important constitutional issue at play here about whether the notwithstanding clause is the final word”.