Saskatchewan is seeking an expedited Supreme Court appeal on a ruling that allows a challenge to its parental rights policy, citing national importance, as reported by the Epoch Times.

In 2023, Premier Scott Moe's government implemented a policy, now law protected by the notwithstanding clause, requiring parental consent for students under 16 to change names or pronouns in schools.

Go Ad Free

The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal ruled last month that a challenge of the law by LGBT advocacy group UR Pride can continue despite the province’s use of the clause, which can be used by governments to override certain Charter rights for five years.

Saskatchewan Premier Scott Moe explains why he's using the notwithstanding clause to protect parental rights in the province as his government fights against secret gender transitions in schools.https://t.co/CDi95ZBkYD pic.twitter.com/FJBauickV0

— Rebel News (@RebelNewsOnline) October 2, 2023

Though the notwithstanding clause protects provincial laws from most legal challenges, that excludes constitutional challenges under Charter section 12, which prohibits cruel and unusual treatment.

UR Pride's challenge revolves around the defence of "gender diverse" students, the advocacy group said.

The province then applied to the Supreme Court of Canada, arguing the case questions whether courts can declare on laws limiting Charter rights when the notwithstanding clause is invoked.

Saskatchewan’s case, parallel to a Quebec law challenge concerning religious symbols in the public sector, both involve the notwithstanding clause.

Concerning Saskatchewan, UR Pride lawyers notified the Supreme Court of their intent to appeal, seeking to have their case heard with the Quebec challenge.

Alberta considering notwithstanding clause to defend parental rights

An internal Justice Department memo reveals a September 10 directive from Premier Smith's office on invoking the notwithstanding clause.https://t.co/Yg2n3osBOM

— Rebel News Canada (@RebelNews_CA) September 19, 2025

On August 11, Chief Justice Robert W. Leurer ruled that the Court of King’s Bench can evaluate the province’s parental rights law for Charter rights infringements, despite the province using the notwithstanding clause.

The court ruled the notwithstanding clause allows a law to operate despite unreasonably limiting a Charter right, not avoiding the limitation itself. A declaratory statement on the law's constitutionality can also be issued, even without striking it down.

On September 18, Federal Justice Minister Sean Fraser asked the Supreme Court to limit how provincial governments can use the notwithstanding clause, filing a factum outlining the government's stance on constitutional issues related to its use.

Fraser stated the government was considering how governments would invoke the clause for years to come, beyond immediate court issues.

Moe criticized the federal move as a "significant infringement on the autonomy of provinces," vowing strong opposition to any limits on the use of the notwithstanding clause. He added that the move infringed on "their elected legislatures."

"There's no such thing as parental rights in Canada," says NDP MP Randall Garrison in response to Alberta's plans for a parental rights bill.

"Children have rights in Canada, and these kinds of policies restrict the rights children have."https://t.co/AY8uVnohmI pic.twitter.com/2Fvtcy8B4t

— Rebel News (@RebelNewsOnline) February 8, 2024

A Bloc Québécois motion to undermine the challenge failed 159-170 on Thursday, with the Bloc and Conservatives voting for it, and Liberals, NDP, and Green Party against. 14 Conservative and Liberal MPs did not vote.

During Question Period, Bloc Québécois Leader Yves-François Blanchet questioned the prime minister on the government's Supreme Court factum, which suggested Quebec might use the notwithstanding clause to "bring back slavery or take away women's rights."

Prime Minister Mark Carney stated the federal government is responsible for defending the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, as it protects all Canadians.