Skip to main content

Government lawyers call UR Pride arguments ‘Trojan Horse’ as they argue for end to lawsuit

Share

A day after lawyers for UR Pride made their arguments for their lawsuit against the Parents’ Bill of Rights, government lawyers are calling charter breaches objectionable.

The government and its lawyers believe the case is moot after a policy, preventing children under the age of 16 from changing their preferred pronouns or names at school without parental consent, was written in Bill 137 last fall.

The law operates notwithstanding sections 2, 7 and 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

UR Prides’ lawyers added a section 12 charter argument to its amended application, which says everyone has the right not to be subjected to any cruel or unusual treatment.

“The new amendments of section 12 are objectionable,” Deron Kuski, who represents the government, told the court.

“They are nothing more than a Trojan Horse to try and convince this court to continue this claim,” he added.

Kuski argued all amendments, including the addition of section 12 arguments, should not be allowed to continue.

“Section 12 is not remotely arguable,” he said.

Justice Michael Megaw responding to Kuski by asking, “If I were to agree with you that section 12 is without merit, should [another party] then submit [a new claim] seeking relief under section 12 – can they?”

“Yes,” Kuski replied. “Because it is a part of their original application.”

“It seems untenable I would tell one litigant, ‘You are not welcome at the court house doors, but that one behind you is advancing the exact same claim.’ How does that make sense?” the judge asked.

“This is a scenario where the failure to bring it up in the first place contributes to the legislature not having a reasonable opportunity to deal with it,” Kuski commented.

Lawyers also argued the law protects the rights of parents and safety of children.

JUDGE RESERVES DECISION

The case now lies in the hands of Justice Megaw, who reserved his decision for a later date.

Several possible decisions could be made, including the case continuing as amended or struck down completely.

It is also possible the case continues, but the charter arguments made by UR Pride are not allowed.

CTVNews.ca Top Stories

Stay Connected