Access-to-Information

CFE Intervener Factum in the Supreme Court of Canada – UR Pride challenged the constitutionality of a Saskatchewan policy that parental consent was required if students under the age of 16 requested that schools use preferred first names and pronouns. In response, Saskatchewan amended its Education Act, incorporating the policy into law and invoked the Charter’s notwithstanding clause (s. 33). UR Pride sought a declaration that the legislation is unconstitutional. Saskatchewan argued that once it incorporated s. 33, the issue of constitutionality is moot and the court cannot issue a declaratory judgment. In its factum CFE makes three submissions. First, s. 33 should be interpreted in light of the public’s right to be informed in a democracy. Second, the public’s right to be informed pre-dates the Charter and is a throughline in the Supreme Court’s interpretation of Charter provisions, most notably ss. 2(b), 3 and 4. Third, because the invocation of the notwithstanding clause has to be renewed every five years, meaning there will be an election that allows the public to defeat a government if it objects to the government’s use of s. 33, judicial declarations are necessary information if the public is to be an effective check against misuse of s. 33.