Bill 21, also known as the Act respecting the laicity of the State, was passed into law on June 16, 2019. It prohibits certain public workers such as judges, police officers, prison guards and teachers, from wearing religious symbols such as hijabs, turbans, yarmulkes, and crosses while at work.
The federal government has stated that it will intervene in the case and make arguments against Bill 21.
“We’re going to defend the Charter that we helped create over 40 years ago. That includes giving a fulsome interpretation to rights that lead to equality, rights that relate to expression, rights that relate to religion,” Attorney General Arif Virani told reporters on Jan. 23.
Quebec's Justice Minister Simon Jolin-Barrette, and the Minister Responsible for Secularism, Jean-François Roberge, issued a joint statement saying Quebec will defend the law and that any intervention from the federal government would be an attack on provincial autonomy.
The bill was challenged by the Canadian Civil Liberties Association and a number of religious advocacy organizations on the basis that it violates the rights and freedoms of individuals in Quebec who work in or aspire to work in the public service.
The Quebec Court of Appeal upheld the law in Organisation mondiale sikhe du Canada c. Procureur général du Québec, 2024 QCCA 254, noting that it was not empowered to rule on whether the Act infringes on the freedoms of religion and expression or the right to equality guaranteed by the Canadian or Quebec charters because of the notwithstanding clause.
To prevent challenges to the law, the Quebec government invoked the Constitution's notwithstanding clause, which allows the provincial legislature or Parliament to temporarily override certain rights and freedoms.
The notwithstanding clause must be renewed every five years.
The court also overturned a lower court ruling that English school boards were exempt from the operation of Bill 21 as they are protected under the Constitution’s minority language rights.
The court of appeal did, however find that members of the province’s National Assembly cannot be forced to exercise their functions with their face uncovered as it infringes on their right to be qualified for membership in a legislative assembly under s. 3 of the Canadian Charter.
The National Council of Canadian Muslims (NCCM) and the CCLA welcomed the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision to hear the challenge.
“It is crucial for the highest court in Canada to have an opportunity to provide clarity on the role of the courts to review legislation when the notwithstanding clause is used to override fundamental rights and freedoms,” the CCLA said in a release.
If you have any information, story ideas, or news tips for Law360 Canada on business-related law and litigation, including class actions, please contact Karunjit Singh at karunjit.singh@lexisnexis.ca or 905-415-5859.