The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal has released its decision in the high-profile legal fight over Bill 137, the province’s Parents’ Bill of Rights, which requires parental consent before students under 16 can change their names or pronouns at school.

The judgment addresses whether the legal challenge — launched by federally funded sex-activist organizations and teachers’ unions — can proceed despite the province’s use of the notwithstanding clause, which shields the law from certain Charter challenges for up to five years.

Go Ad Free

What the Court Said

In a ruling released Monday morning, the court found litigation of the policy can be heard at the Court of King's Bench. This decision means the case will advance to a full constitutional hearing.

The challenge will test whether Premier Scott Moe's changes to the Saskatchewan Education Act violate Section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms — limiting the right to life, liberty and security of the person — and equality rights laid out in Section 15 (1).

Importantly, the ruling does not change the fact that the Parents’ Bill of Rights remains in force. The policy continues to be applied in Saskatchewan schools starting this school year.

Why the Law Stays in Effect

The Saskatchewan government pre-emptively invoked the notwithstanding clause when passing Bill 137.

This means that even if the courts eventually side with the activists and teachers’ groups, the law will still operate for the full five-year protection period unless repealed or amended by the legislature.

Monday's decision is strictly about whether the courts can hear the case — not about suspending or overturning the law. 

Background

Bill 137 requires parental consent before a student under 16 can change their name or pronouns at school.

The challenge, led by UR Pride — with support from other federally funded activist groups and educators’ organizations — arguing the law violates Charter rights such as equality and security of the person.

The province argues the law protects parents’ role in raising their children and that the notwithstanding clause immunizes it from this kind of court challenge.

Next Steps

With the Court of Appeal allowing the challenge to proceed, the case will head back to a lower court for a full hearing on its merits.

If the court sides with Saskatchewan, the challenge ends here — cementing the law’s operation for at least the remainder of the five-year notwithstanding clause period and, impertinently, allowing disciplinary actions against those who violate the law. 

In all scenarios, the Parents’ Bill of Rights stays in effect.