CMA Challenges Saskatchewan's Use of Notwithstanding Clause in Supreme Court
Event summary
- The Canadian Medical Association (CMA) has applied for leave to intervene in the Supreme Court case *Government of Saskatchewan v. UR Pride Centre*.
- Saskatchewan is using the notwithstanding clause to shield legislation regarding parental consent for student pronoun and name changes from judicial review.
- The CMA believes courts should be able to rule on the constitutionality of legislation even when the notwithstanding clause is invoked.
- In May 2025, the CMA launched a constitutional challenge against Alberta's Bill 26, which the government subsequently shielded with the notwithstanding clause.
- The Supreme Court's decision could have broad implications for health care and rights-based advocacy across Canada.
The big picture
The CMA's intervention highlights a growing tension between provincial legislatures and the judiciary regarding Charter rights. Saskatchewan's use of the notwithstanding clause represents a significant shift in legal strategy, potentially weakening judicial oversight and setting a precedent for other provinces to limit judicial review of legislation. This case underscores the CMA's increasing role as a legal and advocacy force within the Canadian healthcare landscape.
What we're watching
- Governance Dynamics
- The Supreme Court's ruling will clarify the boundaries of legislative power and judicial review, potentially impacting the use of the notwithstanding clause by other provincial governments.
- Regulatory Headwinds
- Increased scrutiny of legislative actions employing the notwithstanding clause is likely, potentially leading to stricter guidelines or limitations on its application.
- Execution Risk
- The CMA’s ongoing challenge to Alberta’s Bill 26 will be significantly influenced by the Supreme Court’s decision, potentially altering the legal strategy and timeline for that case.