Marathon Four-Day Hearing on Quebec’s Bill 21 Concludes at the Supreme Court of Canada

OTTAWA — Today marked the conclusion of a four-day hearing—one of the longest in the history of the Supreme Court of Canada—on Quebec’s Bill 21, An Act respecting the Laicity of the State.

Enacted in 2019, Bill 21 prohibits many public sector workers in Quebec, and those who aspire to those careers, from wearing religious symbols at work, including hijabs, turbans, yarmulkes, and crosses.

Over the past four days, the Court heard arguments from multiple parties and a record number of interveners, including six Attorneys General, on the constitutionality of Bill 21 and whether the Quebec government’s use of override clauses can shield the law from meaningful judicial review.

“The stakes in this case are high. The Court is being asked to consider not only the constitutionality of Bill 21, but also broader questions about the proper use of the notwithstanding clause and the role of courts in reviewing legislation enacted using that override,” said Howard Sapers, Executive Director of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association (CCLA). “The notwithstanding clause was never intended to be used as a tool to avoid accountability for laws that violate fundamental rights and freedoms.”

On the first day of the hearing, counsel for the CCLA, the National Council of Canadian Muslims, and Ichrak Nourel Hak argued that Bill 21 should be struck down because it inconsistent with Canada’s constitutional structure, including the division of powers, and violates fundamental rights and freedoms protected by both the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

“This case is about the kind of country we want to be and whether governments can use what were intended to be extraordinary measures to routinely insulate rights infringing laws from meaningful review,” said Harini Sivalingam, Director of Equality at the CCLA “The Court’s decision will have profound implications for rights and freedoms across Canada, especially for vulnerable and marginalized communities.”

“This debate is not about whether Quebec is a distinct society within Canada – it clearly is,” said Anaïs Bussières McNicoll, Director of Fundamental Freedoms at the CCLA. “This case is about whether the population and the courts would be powerless if a future government were to legalize torture or slavery, or criminalize criticism of the state.”

The decision of the Court is now on reserve.

We are deeply grateful for the excellent pro bono representation of David Grossman, Olga Redko, and Marie-Hélène Lyonnais from IMK in this case.