The Court of Appeal validates Bill 21 on the laicity of the State
The Quebec Court of Appeal upholds the validity of Bill 21 on the laicity of the State and the wearing of religious symbols. The ruling ruled in favour of the Legault government and inflicted a defeat on the English Montreal School Board. The federal government reiterates that if the case goes to the Supreme Court of Canada, it will intervene.
This long-awaited 300-page judgment, released Thursday afternoon, goes further than the Superior Court's decision of April 2021 and undermines the exceptional regime it had decreed for English-language school boards.
Read "Constitutionality of Bill 21: Five Things to Remember"The secularism sought by the law "essentially reflects the current state of the law which, in Quebec as elsewhere in the rest of the country, is based on a separation of state and religion: because in fact, the constituent elements of the Canadian state are secular," wrote Justices Manon Savard, Yves-Marie Morrissette and Marie-France Bich.
They also point out that "although the bill has been controversial in various aspects, a reading of the debates confirms one thing. No one has argued at any time that the purpose of the bill was to punish, penalize or stigmatize persons whose religious beliefs would be coerced as a result of the affirmation of the secularism of the State. »
According to the Court of Appeal's decision, state employees – judges, police officers, Crown prosecutors, principals and teachers, among others – "must comply with the constraints imposed on them by the neutrality and secularism of the state. This is a far cry from the criminal law and the other heads of power of the federal Parliament."
The English Montreal School Board has already raised the possibility of going all the way to the Supreme Court.
And it is not impossible that the victory in the Court of Appeal of the Legault government and the supporters of secularism will be "ephemeral," according to constitutional expert Daniel Turp. He noted that "the majority of the Supreme Court justices were appointed by Justin Trudeau," who is committed to multiculturalism.
No exemption for English-language school boardsIn April 2021, Superior Court Magistrate Marc-André Blanchard had already ruled that the law was largely valid, but he had created an exception regime to remove English-language school boards from its scope.
Dissatisfied with this exemption, the Legault government referred the matter to the Court of Appeal. He found it unacceptable that the Superior Court's decision created two separate school systems: one for English-language schools (where teachers will be able to wear religious symbols at work) and French-language schools, where they will be prohibited from doing so.
For the CAQ government, there must be a clear and total separation between state and religion in Quebec, and the Court of Appeal's decision is entirely in line with that.
Quebec Premier François Legault and Minister Responsible for Secularism Jean-François Roberge
Patrick Taillon, a law professor at Laval University, believes that this judgment, by its tone and content, is of the kind that "contributes to the social acceptability" of the secularism advocated by the Quebec government.
In his opinion, it is a great victory for the Legault government and a defeat for Justice Blanchard, who tried trial, he said. Contrary to this magistrate who considered that the wearing of religious symbols was part of the power to manage schools,
this has its limits, according to the Court of Appeal.
School boards manage their schools, "but it's not an enclave," Taillon said, and school authorities "must respect the laws of Quebec."
Moreover, in passing its law, the Legault government invoked the notwithstanding clause – the "notwithstanding clause" – to avoid a legal challenge by those who would seek to invalidate it by arguing that it is discriminatory and contrary to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Here again, Patrick Taillon points out, the Court of Appeal mentions in passing that the law was adopted with the notwithstanding clause, but that it could very well be defended on the ground of reasonableness per se.
Constitutional expert Daniel Turp also notes that the Court of Appeal swung its wand on the fingers of Justice Blanchard of the Superior Court.
The Court of Appeal insisted that "the notwithstanding clause cannot be questioned. It's enshrined in the constitution and you can't blame governments for using it," Turp said.
'A win across the board'In the lobby of the Court of Appeal in Montreal, groups that have advocated for the provisions
of the law hailed it as a "victory across the board."
"Today, this is a great victory for Quebec's ability to make its choices," said Guillaume Rousseau, a lawyer for the Mouvement laïque québécois. "This is a clear disavowal for all those who have been telling us for years that it is possible to circumvent
the notwithstanding clause," he later added.
Guillaume Rousseau, lawyer for the Mouvement laïque québécois
As for the section concerning English-language school boards, Ms. Rousseau noted that this decision demonstrates that "the right to secular public services is for everyone."
English Montreal School Board (EMSB) President Joe Ortona said he was "disappointed" with Thursday's decision. Although he prefers to take the time to analyze the judgment first, he is already talking about the possibility of going to the Supreme Court. "It's definitely on the table. We must base ourselves on principles of law and not emotions," he said.
Joe Ortona, Chair of the English Montreal School Board
Justin Trudeau reaffirms his oppositionThere is a good chance that the case will go to the highest court in the land, and if so, the Canadian government will participate in the process, Canadian Justice Minister Arif Virani reiterated Thursday.
"If the appeal were accepted, it would be a matter of national interest," he said at a press conference, but said he wanted to take the time to read the decision before going any further.
At noon on Thursday, on the sidelines of an announcement on housing in Ontario, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau reaffirmed his long-standing opposition to the Act respecting the laicity of the State.
Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau opposes the law.
"If and when the issue [ends] at the Supreme Court, we will step in as a federal government to protect and uphold the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms," he said.
Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre also disagrees with Bill 21, and in the past has been
supportive of Ottawa's participation in a possible challenge.
The same goes for NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh, who expressed disappointment with the court's decision Thursday.
"We respect the authority of the Court of Appeal, but like many Quebecers, we are very sad about the impacts of this discriminatory law," he said on the X network.
An "odious" desire for protestWhile rejoicing at this victory for the CAQ government, the leader of the Bloc Québécois, Yves-François Blanchet, denounced the Liberals' desire to challenge it before the highest court in the land.
"Going to court is always legitimate. Supported by the state against another government is something else. To do it with Quebecers' own money is literally abhorrent," he said at a press conference.
The Bloc leader also made a prediction: "If we go into the election campaign with this, I think the election campaign will be devastating for what will be left of the Liberals."
In Quebec City, however, some denounced the use of the notwithstanding clause. This is the case of the Quebec Liberal Party, which believes that the CAQ is using it in an "excessive" manner, which means that "the Act respecting the laicity of the State is exempt from judicial review." "For us Liberals, it has always been very clear that the wall-to-wall use of notwithstanding clauses prevents a balancing of laws in the courts. The CAQ's pre-emptive approach to preventing any legal recourse is, for us, unacceptable,"
said the interim leader of the Official Opposition, Marc Tanguay.
Read "Constitutionality of Bill 21: Five Things to Remember"The secularism sought by the law "essentially reflects the current state of the law which, in Quebec as elsewhere in the rest of the country, is based on a separation of state and religion: because in fact, the constituent elements of the Canadian state are secular," wrote Justices Manon Savard, Yves-Marie Morrissette and Marie-France Bich.
They also point out that "although the bill has been controversial in various aspects, a reading of the debates confirms one thing. No one has argued at any time that the purpose of the bill was to punish, penalize or stigmatize persons whose religious beliefs would be coerced as a result of the affirmation of the secularism of the State. »
According to the Court of Appeal's decision, state employees – judges, police officers, Crown prosecutors, principals and teachers, among others – "must comply with the constraints imposed on them by the neutrality and secularism of the state. This is a far cry from the criminal law and the other heads of power of the federal Parliament."
The English Montreal School Board has already raised the possibility of going all the way to the Supreme Court.
And it is not impossible that the victory in the Court of Appeal of the Legault government and the supporters of secularism will be "ephemeral," according to constitutional expert Daniel Turp. He noted that "the majority of the Supreme Court justices were appointed by Justin Trudeau," who is committed to multiculturalism.
No exemption for English-language school boardsIn April 2021, Superior Court Magistrate Marc-André Blanchard had already ruled that the law was largely valid, but he had created an exception regime to remove English-language school boards from its scope.
Dissatisfied with this exemption, the Legault government referred the matter to the Court of Appeal. He found it unacceptable that the Superior Court's decision created two separate school systems: one for English-language schools (where teachers will be able to wear religious symbols at work) and French-language schools, where they will be prohibited from doing so.
For the CAQ government, there must be a clear and total separation between state and religion in Quebec, and the Court of Appeal's decision is entirely in line with that.
Quebec Premier François Legault and Minister Responsible for Secularism Jean-François Roberge
Patrick Taillon, a law professor at Laval University, believes that this judgment, by its tone and content, is of the kind that "contributes to the social acceptability" of the secularism advocated by the Quebec government.
In his opinion, it is a great victory for the Legault government and a defeat for Justice Blanchard, who tried trial, he said. Contrary to this magistrate who considered that the wearing of religious symbols was part of the power to manage schools,
this has its limits, according to the Court of Appeal.
School boards manage their schools, "but it's not an enclave," Taillon said, and school authorities "must respect the laws of Quebec."
Moreover, in passing its law, the Legault government invoked the notwithstanding clause – the "notwithstanding clause" – to avoid a legal challenge by those who would seek to invalidate it by arguing that it is discriminatory and contrary to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Here again, Patrick Taillon points out, the Court of Appeal mentions in passing that the law was adopted with the notwithstanding clause, but that it could very well be defended on the ground of reasonableness per se.
Constitutional expert Daniel Turp also notes that the Court of Appeal swung its wand on the fingers of Justice Blanchard of the Superior Court.
The Court of Appeal insisted that "the notwithstanding clause cannot be questioned. It's enshrined in the constitution and you can't blame governments for using it," Turp said.
'A win across the board'In the lobby of the Court of Appeal in Montreal, groups that have advocated for the provisions
of the law hailed it as a "victory across the board."
"Today, this is a great victory for Quebec's ability to make its choices," said Guillaume Rousseau, a lawyer for the Mouvement laïque québécois. "This is a clear disavowal for all those who have been telling us for years that it is possible to circumvent
the notwithstanding clause," he later added.
Guillaume Rousseau, lawyer for the Mouvement laïque québécois
As for the section concerning English-language school boards, Ms. Rousseau noted that this decision demonstrates that "the right to secular public services is for everyone."
English Montreal School Board (EMSB) President Joe Ortona said he was "disappointed" with Thursday's decision. Although he prefers to take the time to analyze the judgment first, he is already talking about the possibility of going to the Supreme Court. "It's definitely on the table. We must base ourselves on principles of law and not emotions," he said.
Joe Ortona, Chair of the English Montreal School Board
Justin Trudeau reaffirms his oppositionThere is a good chance that the case will go to the highest court in the land, and if so, the Canadian government will participate in the process, Canadian Justice Minister Arif Virani reiterated Thursday.
"If the appeal were accepted, it would be a matter of national interest," he said at a press conference, but said he wanted to take the time to read the decision before going any further.
At noon on Thursday, on the sidelines of an announcement on housing in Ontario, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau reaffirmed his long-standing opposition to the Act respecting the laicity of the State.
Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau opposes the law.
"If and when the issue [ends] at the Supreme Court, we will step in as a federal government to protect and uphold the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms," he said.
Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre also disagrees with Bill 21, and in the past has been
supportive of Ottawa's participation in a possible challenge.
The same goes for NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh, who expressed disappointment with the court's decision Thursday.
"We respect the authority of the Court of Appeal, but like many Quebecers, we are very sad about the impacts of this discriminatory law," he said on the X network.
An "odious" desire for protestWhile rejoicing at this victory for the CAQ government, the leader of the Bloc Québécois, Yves-François Blanchet, denounced the Liberals' desire to challenge it before the highest court in the land.
"Going to court is always legitimate. Supported by the state against another government is something else. To do it with Quebecers' own money is literally abhorrent," he said at a press conference.
The Bloc leader also made a prediction: "If we go into the election campaign with this, I think the election campaign will be devastating for what will be left of the Liberals."
In Quebec City, however, some denounced the use of the notwithstanding clause. This is the case of the Quebec Liberal Party, which believes that the CAQ is using it in an "excessive" manner, which means that "the Act respecting the laicity of the State is exempt from judicial review." "For us Liberals, it has always been very clear that the wall-to-wall use of notwithstanding clauses prevents a balancing of laws in the courts. The CAQ's pre-emptive approach to preventing any legal recourse is, for us, unacceptable,"
said the interim leader of the Official Opposition, Marc Tanguay.
