Canadian Medical Association seeking to intervene on Saskatchewan pronoun case

The Canadian Medical Association (CMA) has applied to intervene in the ongoing pronoun case in Saskatchewan.

In a release issued on Tuesday, the CMA stated that it would like to intervene before the Supreme Court in the landmark case between the Government of Saskatchewan (Minister of Education) v. UR Pride Centre for Sexuality and Gender Diversity (“UR Pride”).

The case stems from Saskatchewan legislation requiring parental consent for students under 16 to change their names or pronouns at school.

Premier Scott Moe’s government introduced the policy in 2023, saying it was intended to strengthen parental involvement in decisions affecting their children.

After a court granted an injunction blocking the policy, citing potential harm to vulnerable students and possible Charter violations, the province invoked the notwithstanding clause to allow the law to continue.

The clause, sometimes known as “the override power,” allows governments to override some rights within the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The CMA, however, said courts must still be able to assess the constitutionality of legislation, even when Charter protections are temporarily overridden.

“The notwithstanding clause should not be a tool to end public and legal debate,” CMA president Dr. Margot Burnell said in a statement.

The CMA says being able to obtain Charter rulings, even when laws remain in force under the notwithstanding clause, remains critical for transparency, accountability and evidence-based health policy.

According to the release, the Supreme Court has not yet ruled on the merits of the law itself but will decide whether courts can continue to weigh in on Charter questions in cases where the notwithstanding clause is used.

The CMA warns the outcome could have ripple effects beyond Saskatchewan, including its own legal challenge of Alberta’s Bill 26, which it argues interferes with evidence-based medical care and physicians’ freedom of conscience.

Alberta has also invoked the notwithstanding clause to shield that legislation.

The CMA says the decision could shape how future rights-based and health-care-related cases are argued and whether Canadians are able to know when their Charter rights may be at risk.

“Legal debate on important issues requires dialogue among legislature, courts and citizens,” Burnell said.