The Saskatchewan Trial Lawyers’ Association (STLA), a collective of more than 300 jurists from around the province, has openly expressed concern with the Premier’s recent comments following a court injunction concerning a contentious governmental policy.
Last September, an injunction was issued by a Regina judge against a policy newly implemented by the Ministry of Education. The policy mandated students below 16 years of age to gain parental approval prior to alter their chosen pronouns or first names in an educational environment. The injunction has temporarily put this policy on hold until the court delivers a final verdict on a lawsuit filed by the University of Regina Pride Centre for Sexuality and Gender Diversity.
Premier Scott Moe, in a communiqué to media outlets, expressed an intention to prematurely recall the legislature with the aim of quickly legislating the policy into law. He implied the use of the notwithstanding clause to bypass any allegations that the policy is a breach of the Charter rights.
The Premier vocalized his government’s deep dismay about the court’s judicial overreach. This comment triggered the worries of the STLA. The organization responded in a news release, indicating that while the Premier and the government hold their respect, such statements seem hasty, carrying a risk of deteriorating public trust in the judiciary.
The STLA emphasizes the importance of the temporary policy suspension implemented by the court, given the Charter arguments and the broader implications for the community, particularly for the youth population.
The legal body reminded all that the judiciary is an integral part of maintaining the balance of power of the legislative branch. Mutual respect between these institutions is paramount for the effective function of democracy. They added, “Whilst the legislature focuses on devising and implementing policies that reflect the best interests of our citizens, the judiciary ensures these policies align with established legal parameters and societal values.”
Justice Michael Megaw, who granted the injunction, highlighted a stark absence of planning and consultation regarding the policy whilst dismissing many of the Saskatchewan government’s injunction arguments. He indicated that the arguments were bereft of a solid foundation or basis on the presented materials.
Drawing from expert witness testimonies, Megaw expressed a probable potential of the policy to inflict harm on children. He affirmed that the policy would cause irreparable harm to the affected individual – a youth below 16 years, unable to change their name, pronouns, gender diversity, and gender identity acknowledged by the school.
The STLA has urged the Saskatchewan Party to face the court’s scrutiny. They encouraged the provincial government to respect the judiciary’s role, permit the court to fulfill its constitutional role of judicial review free of unnecessary comments that could stir controversy.
