Quebec’s Superior Court heard arguments Friday in a case about a high school teacher who alleges her Charter rights were violated when she was ordered to hide a student’s gender identity from their parents.
The teacher, identified only through the initials A.B. in court documents, alleges she was asked to use masculine pronouns for the student during class and feminine ones with the student’s parents at risk of losing her job in 2023.
The court withheld the teacher’s name to protect the identity of the student in the case.
The teacher has taken the government to court, seeking to invalidate a provincial education policy that allows students 14 and up to change their name and pronouns used in school with or without parental consent.
The provincial Education Ministry introduced the policy in 2021 to ensure the inclusion of all people with diverse sexual orientations, gender identities and gender expressions in schools.
The policy stresses that confidentiality is “extremely important.”
The teacher said the provincial policy left her feeling uncomfortable speaking to the parents about their child.
She also alleges the school’s instructions had violated her freedom of conscience and freedom of expression.
The court is now reviewing arguments about whether some witnesses providing statements in the case can remain anonymous, testing the limits of what’s in the public interest.
Two legal clinics, Juritrans and Our Duty Canada, are intervening in the case.
Our Duty lawyers collected affidavits from parents of transgender children across Canada and two adult women who detransitioned after starting a gender transition in high school.
The teacher’s lawyer, Olivier Séguin, argued the identity of all affiants should be withheld from court documents to ensure they do not rescind their testimony. Some also requested their testimony be for lawyers’ eyes only.
He said their perspectives are vital for the court to hear balanced positions and are of public interest. However, many only agreed to submit their testimony under condition of anonymity and “zero risk.”
According to Séguin, the affiants worry about their relationships with their children — whose medical histories and psychosocial information is detailed in the testimonies — and of negative repercussions given “the societal context” and sensitivity of the topic.
Juritrans disagrees with this approach, noting a judge already granted limited confidentiality for all trans minors in the case.
Juritrans lawyer Lex Gill said she would not be able to properly cross-examine witnesses if the judge approved the anonymity requests, which would extend to her clients.
Juritrans intervened in the case to represent the interests of transgender youths and students, including a minor who agreed to testify.
Gill said the clinic is “seeking to protect the constitutional rights of [those] directly affected by the policy” the teacher wants nullified.
She added there is “no legal standing” to grant anonymity to protect from “personal conflict, embarrassment and the usual stress of participating in court procedures” or to “instrumentalize” the personal information of third parties without their consent.
She is asking the judge to waive Séguin and Our Canada’s confidentiality requests, saying it goes against the spirit of public interest and the open court system.
The judge’s decision is expected to land in a few weeks.
The court has not yet set a date to hear arguments in the wider case.
