The Supreme Court of Canada has agreed to hear a legal challenge of Quebec’s secularism law, known as Bill 21.
The top court announced Thursday morning it has granted leave to appeal to several groups that oppose the law, which prohibits civil servants in positions of authority, including teachers and police officers, from wearing religious symbols on the job.
Bill 21 was passed in 2019 by the Quebec government, which pre-emptively invoked Section 33 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, known as the notwithstanding clause, to shield the legislation from court challenges over fundamental rights violations.
Opponents have fought the law ever since, but it has been largely upheld by lower courts. In April 2021, a Quebec Superior Court judge ruled Bill 21 was mostly legal, but exempted English-language school boards and struck down a ban on members of the provincial legislature wearing face coverings.
At the time, Justice Marc-André Blanchard criticized the government’s use of the notwithstanding clause, and found the law violates the rights of Muslim women and “dehumanizes” those affected. Still, he found the government’s approach was “legally unassailable in the current state of the law.”
Last February, the Quebec Court of Appeal upheld the secularism law and overturned the exemption for English schools in a victory for Quebec Premier François Legault.
Related Stories
Several groups sought leave to appeal that decision to the country’s top court, including the National Council for Canadian Muslims, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association and the English Montreal School Board.
The Quebec government has long argued the law is reasonable, and the province’s justice minister has said he intends to vigorously defend it against all challenges.
Meanwhile, the federal Liberal government has said it would intervene in support of a Supreme Court challenge of Bill 21. The Conservatives have not said what they would do, though party leader Pierre Poilievre has said he opposes the law.
In a rare move, Supreme Court Justice Mahmud Jamal recused himself from the case last summer at the request of the attorney general of Quebec, who had cited his past connection to the Canadian Civil Liberties Association.
