The Law on Secularism of the State of Quebec will be examined by the Supreme Court of Canada

As expected (new window)the Supreme Court of Canada confirmed the news Thursday morning by giving its approval to the authorization requests filed in this case last year.

Its judgment was made public at around 9:45 a.m. As usual, the court offered no reasons to justify its decision. Likewise, the hearing dates have not yet been communicated.

Law 21, adopted on June 16, 2019 (new window) during the first mandate of the Coalition Avenir Québec (CAQ), prohibited certain state employees occupying positions of authority – such as judges, police officers, prison guards and teachers – from wearing religious symbols visible in the exercise of their functions.

To protect it from legal challenges, the government used the notwithstanding clause of the Canadian Constitution, also known as the “notwithstanding clause” or “parliamentary sovereignty clause”. This mechanism, which must be renewed every five years, was renewed in 2024 (new window).

Despite these precautions, the law was challenged in court, first in the Superior Court, then in the Court of Appeal of Quebec, without it being invalidated, with the exception of the ban imposed on deputies from wearing ostentatious religious signs.

The Superior Court ruled in favor of the English school boards (new window)who argued that the State Secularism Act infringed on their linguistic rights, but this decision was later overturned by the Court of Appeal (new window).

The English Montreal School Board (CSEM) (new window) is one of the parties asking the Supreme Court to review this case.

Other groups, such as the Autonomous Education Federation (FAE) (new window)the World Sikh Organization of Canada, the National Council of Canadian Muslims and the Canadian Civil Liberties Association (CCLA) have also taken the matter to the highest judicial body in the country.

Judge Mahmud Jamal (new window) has also recused himself from this matter due to his former role as president of theCanadian Civil Liberties AssociationACLCwho had filed an appeal against the law in 2019. For this reason, he did not participate in the judgment handed down on Thursday.

Beyond legal considerations, this affair remains highly politicized, dividing the parties in the House of Commons and the National Assembly.

In Ottawa, only the Bloc Québécois defends “Bill 21”. The resigning Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau, has always affirmed that the federal government should intervene in the event that the Supreme Court takes up the matter, an opinion shared by Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre and New Democratic Leader Jagmeet Singh.

For its part, the Legault government vigorously defends this law, written by Simon Jolin-Barrette, current attorney general of Quebec. To do this, it benefits from the support of certain groups such as the Mouvement laïque québécois. Droits collectives Québec (DCQ) also announced Thursday that it will request intervener status.

At the heart of this affair is, among other things, the preventive use of the notwithstanding provision, a measure included in the Constitution during the 1982 repatriation to convince the provinces to give their approval to the project of the then Prime Minister, Pierre Elliott Trudeau.

The intervention of the federal government in the Supreme Court would also be considered as “an attack on the autonomy of the federated states” (new window)declared Ministers Simon Jolin-Barrette (Justice) and Jean-François Roberge (Secularism), Thursday morning, on social networks.