Court injunction sought against Alberta government's new transgender youth health care legislation
Social Sharing
Lawyers for two LGBTQ+ advocacy organizations are in court Monday for the first step in their fight against the Alberta government's transgender law that prevents doctors from providing gender-affirming treatments, including puberty blockers and hormone therapy for youths under the age of 16.
Egale Canada and Alberta's Skipping Stone Foundation, joined by the families of five gender-diverse Alberta youths, launched the legal action against the provincial government in December after Bill 26 received royal assent. It has not yet been proclaimed.
The groups are challenging the constitutionality of the bill and seeking an injunction that would protect youth access to the health care in question while the courts decide whether the law is constitutional.
Egale has called the Alberta government's actions "unprecedented" and " sweeping attack on the rights, safety and freedoms of 2SLGBTQI people in Alberta."
The organization argues it is unconstitutional to deny medical care on the basis of being gender diverse and is a violation of the teens' Charter rights to security of the person, freedom from cruel and unusual treatment and their right to equality.
A spokesperson for the justice minister previously said it would be inappropriate to comment on the case as it's before the courts but did say the legislation "strikes an apportioned balance."
In December, Smith said the bill is necessary to protect children.
"We don't allow them to smoke, we don't allow them to do drugs, we don't allow them to drive. So we think that making a permanent decision that will affect one's fertility is an adult decision," Smith said.
Smith has previously expressed confidence that her government's bill will withstand the Charter challenge but said the notwithstanding clause is on the table as "a last resort." It's a constitutional measure which allows a government to override certain Charter rights for up to five years.
Part of Bill 26 includes a ban on gender-affirming "top" surgery for youths, a rule which is already in effect.
Bill 26 is one of three transgender laws the government seeks to implement.
The Education Amendment Act will see a requirement for parental consent for children under 16 to change their names or pronouns at school, and for parental opt-in for their kids to be taught lessons on sexuality, sexual orientation and gender identity.
The Fairness and Safety in Sports act — banning transgender athletes from competing in female mature sports — is also set to become law. As part of the new legislation, sports organizations will also be required to report eligibility complaints to the government.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Cision Canada
2 hours ago
- Cision Canada
CLASS ACTION AUTHORIZED AGAINST CANADA ALLEGING UNCONSTITUTIONALITY OF "EMPLOYER-TYING MEASURES"(1) IMPOSED ON TEMPORARY FOREIGN WORKERS, INCLUDING EMPLOYER-SPECIFIC OR "CLOSED" WORK PERMITS Français
MONTREAL, June 28, 2025 /CNW/ - On September 13, 2024, the Superior Court of Québec authorized the Association for the Rights of Household and Farm Workers to institute a class action against the Attorney General of Canada. The Association argues that "employer-tying measures" 1 imposed on temporary foreign workers 2, including employer-specific work permits or "closed" work permits, breach sections 7 and 15(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Association asks that certain provisions of the Canadian Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations be declared unconstitutional, and that Charter damages (monetary compensation) be paid to all members of the class action. The Attorney General of Canada contests the merits of the class action, which will be determined by a trial to be scheduled at a later time. A person is automatically a member of this class action IF they worked in Canada after April 17, 1982 without having been a Canadian citizen or a permanent resident of Canada at the time, AND IF they meet at least one (1) of the following conditions: They were issued a work permit which included the condition of working for a specific employer (or group of employers) or at a specific employer's workplace (or group of workplaces): They meet this condition if they were hired through the Temporary Foreign Workers Program (TFWP), the Seasonal Agricultural Worker Program (SAWP) or the Non-Immigrant Employment Authorization Program (NIEAP). They also meet this condition if they were hired through the International Mobility Program (IMP) or another immigration stream or program and their work permit included the condition of working for a specific employer (or group of employers) or at a specific employer's workplace (or group of workplaces). OR They were authorized to work in Canada without a work permit because they were employed by a foreign entity on a short-term basis, or because they were employed in a personal capacity by an individual who was not a Canadian citizen or permanent resident. This category: includes domestic workers, personal assistants or caregivers (nannies or au pair) who entered Canada along with their employers, or to join their employers for a short-term in Canada; includes accredited domestic workers employed in a personal capacity by certain foreign representatives, such as ambassadors, high commissioners, heads of international organizations, special representatives, or individuals occupying similar positions; does not include individuals who were employed by a foreign State or other foreign entity to work at an embassy, a high commission, a consulate, a permanent delegation to a United Nations agency, or a special representative office; does not include individuals employed by the United Nations, its agencies or an international organization of which Canada is a member. Individuals who meet those criteria are automatically included in the class action. They are not required to do anything further to become members of the class action. They will never have to pay legal costs arising from the class action. If a person does not want to be included in the class action, they may opt out of the class action by August 27, 2025 at 4:30 PM at the latest. The means of opting out and the consequences of doing so are explained in the detailed notice to members of the class action:
CTV News
2 hours ago
- CTV News
What to know about the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling on public school lessons using LGBTQ2S+ books
A selection of books featuring LGBTQ characters that are part of a Supreme Court case are pictured, April, 15, 2025, in Washington. (AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais, File) A divided U.S. Supreme Court has sided with religious parents who want to pull their children out of the classroom when a public school lesson uses LGBTQ2S+-themed storybooks. The 6-3 decision Friday in a case brought by parents in Maryland comes as certain books are increasingly being banned from public schools and libraries. In Justice Samuel Alito's majority opinion — joined by the rest of the court's conservatives — he wrote that the lack of an 'opt-out' for parents places an unconstitutional burden on their rights to religious freedom. Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote in dissent for the three liberal justices that public schools expose children to different views in a multicultural society. 'That experience is critical to our Nation's civic vitality,' she wrote. 'Yet it will become a mere memory if children must be insulated from exposure to ideas and concepts that may conflict with their parents' religious beliefs.' Here's what to know about the case and its potential impacts: What happens next The decision was not a final ruling in the case. It reversed lower-court rulings that sided with the Montgomery County school system, which introduced the storybooks in 2022 as part of an effort to better reflect the district's diversity. At first, the school district allowed parents to opt their children out of the lessons for religious and other reasons, but the district later reversed course, saying it became disruptive. The move prompted protests and eventually a lawsuit. Now, the case goes back to the lower court to be reevaluated under the U.S. Supreme Court 's new guidance. But the justices strongly suggested that the parents will win in the end. The court ruled that policies like the one at issue in this case are subjected to the strictest level of review, nearly always dooming them. The ruling could have national implications for public education Jessica Levinson, a law professor at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles, said the court's ruling could inspire similar lawsuits in other states. 'I think any school district that reads similar books to their children is now subject to suit by parents who don't want their kids to hear these books because it substantially interferes with their religious beliefs,' she said. Whether it could open the door to broader legal challenges remains to be seen. Levinson said the majority opinion's emphasis on the content of the books at the center of the case, including 'Uncle Bobby's Wedding,' a story about a two men getting married, could narrow its impact. 'The question that people will ask,' Levinson said, 'is if this could now allow parents to say, 'We don't want our kids to learn about certain aspects of American history.' ' LGBTQ2S+ rights advocates slam court ruling Adam Zimmerman, who has two kids in school in Montgomery County, Md., called the ruling abhorrent. 'We need to call out what's being dressed up as religious faith and values and expose it for the intolerance that it really is,' he said. Zimmerman has lived in Montgomery County for 16 years and wanted to raise his son and daughter there, in large part, because of the school district's diversity. It was important to him, he said, that his kids be exposed to people from all walks of life. 'It's a beautiful thing, and this ruling just spits on that diversity,' he said. Other rights groups described the court's decision as harmful and dangerous. 'No matter what the Supreme Court has said, and what extremist groups are advocating for, book bans and other censorship will not erase LGBTQIA+ people from our communities,' said Fatima Goss Graves, CEO and president of the National Women's Law Center. Conservative advocates say the case is about parental rights and religious freedom Republican U.S. Sen. Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, who was part of an amicus brief filed in the case in support of the Maryland parents, called the ruling a 'win for families.' 'Students should not be forced to learn about gender and sexuality subject matter that violates their family's religious beliefs,' he said. Lawyer Eric Baxter, who represented the parents at the U.S. Supreme Court, also called the decision a 'historic victory for parental rights.' 'Kids shouldn't be forced into conversations about drag queens, pride parades, or gender transitions without their parents' permission,' Baxter said. Other opponents say ruling will have 'broad chilling effect' PEN America, a group advocating for free expression, said the court's decision could open the door to censorship and discrimination in classrooms. 'In practice, opt outs for religious objections will chill what is taught in schools and usher in a more narrow orthodoxy as fear of offending any ideology or sensibility takes hold,' said Elly Brinkley, a staff attorney at PEN America. In a joint statement Friday, some of the authors and illustrators of the books in question described the ruling as a threat to First Amendment rights to free speech, as well as diversity in schools. 'To treat children's books about LGBTQ+ characters differently than similar books about non-LGBTQ+ characters is discriminatory and harmful,' the statement said. Rio Yamat, The Associated Press
Winnipeg Free Press
4 hours ago
- Winnipeg Free Press
New laws against blocking access to places of worship, schools coming, Fraser says
OTTAWA – Justice Minister Sean Fraser says the Liberal government will press ahead with plans for new criminal provisions against blocking access to places or worship, schools and community centres. The measures, promised during the recent federal election campaign, would also create a criminal offence of wilfully intimidating or threatening people attending events at these venues. The minister's statement comes as civil libertarians point to existing provisions intended to curb such behaviour and push back against the idea of new measures that could infringe on freedom of expression and assembly. Tensions have risen in Canadian communities over public protests, many prompted by the ongoing hostilities in the Middle East. Several Canadian municipalities have taken steps recently to mandate 'bubble zones' that restrict protest activity near such places as religious institutions, schools and child care centres. 'It's not lost on me that there will be different levels of government that try to address this challenge in different ways,' Fraser said, adding that the federal government has an opportunity — where behaviour crosses a criminal threshold — to legislate in that space. 'We clearly have seen challenges when it comes to certain religious communities in Canada who are facing extraordinary discrimination — antisemitism, Islamophobia, and other forms of hate,' Fraser said in a recent interview. 'People need to know that in Canada they are free to pray to the God of their choice and to, at the same time, freely express themselves, but not to the point where you threaten the protected Charter rights of a religious minority.' James Turk, director of the Centre for Free Expression at Toronto Metropolitan University, said he questions the need for new provisions and suggests politicians are proposing penalties simply to appear to be doing something. He said existing laws against mischief, nuisance and interfering with religious celebrations can be used to deal with the kinds of behaviour the federal government wants to address. 'I haven't heard a single thing that isn't already illegal, so it's a waste of time. It adds confusion to the Criminal Code and it suggests that they're only engaged in performative activity,' Turk said. 'They want to be seen to be doing something about this pressure they're under.' Anaïs Bussières McNicoll, director of the fundamental freedoms program at the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, also said she wonders about the scope of the proposed new federal provisions 'and if they are necessary or simply duplicative of existing criminal offences.' Bussières McNicoll said it's important to remember that a protest might be disruptive but also protected by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms' guarantee of peaceful assembly. 'As a parent myself, I know that any protest can be sometimes scary for a child. We're talking about loud voices, huge crowds, emotions are running high,' she said. 'So I believe it's part of my role as a parent to teach my child about what living in a democracy means, why we need protests, why we need space in our society for strong language — including language that we disagree with — and to teach my child about what we can do if we personally disagree with speech that we hear.' Sundays Kevin Rollason's Sunday newsletter honouring and remembering lives well-lived in Manitoba. Richard Robertson, director of research and advocacy at B'nai Brith Canada, said that while the organization welcomes the planned new federal provisions, additional federal measures are needed. B'nai Brith wants national 'vulnerable infrastructure legislation' that would prohibit protests within a certain distance of a place of worship or school, or perhaps during specific time periods, if they interfere with someone's ability to attend the institutions, Robertson said. 'That would remove the need for municipalities and provinces to adopt legislation, and it would send a clear message that across Canada, individuals do not have the right to prevent others from accessing their houses of worship and their community centres and cultural institutions.' — With files from Anja Karadeglia This report by The Canadian Press was first published June 28, 2025.
