Case information

Civil procedure — Stay — Application for provisional stay of ss. 6 and 8 of the Act respecting the laicity of the State — Notwithstanding clause included in the Act — Whether the legal standard for a stay of legislation requires a demonstration of a “clear case of unconstitutionality” for a stay to be issued — Whether the use of the notwithstanding clause changes or otherwise impacts the stay analysis — Act respecting the laicity of the State, CQLR, c. L 0.3, ss. 6 and 8 — Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, ss. 28 and 33.

Case summaries are prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch). Please note that summaries are not provided to the Judges of the Court. They are placed on the Court file and website for information purposes only.

On June 16, 2019, the Act respecting the laicity of the State, CQLR, c. L 0.3, which had been enacted by Quebec’s National Assembly, received Royal Assent and came into force. Sections 6 and 8 of the Act prohibit those who work in or for a variety of public institutions to wear religious symbols at work and to cover their faces while exercising their functions. The legislature included a “notwithstanding” clause in the Act, expressly stating that its provisions will have effect notwithstanding ss. 2 and 7 to 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Act also contains a “grandfather” clause indicating that s. 6 does not apply to persons in their functions at the date of the introduction of the bill (March 27, 2019) for as long as they exercise the same function within the same organization. The applicants, Ichrak Nourel Hak, the National Council of Canadian Muslims and the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, served on the respondent, the Attorney General of Quebec, an application in which they sought to have the Act declared invalid and to have a suspension of the application of ss. 6 and 8 of the Act for the period required by the courts to rule on the merits of the case. The Superior Court dismissed the application for provisional stay of ss. 6 and 8 of the Act, applying the test set out in Manitoba (A.G.) v. Metropolitan Stores Ltd., [1987] 1 S.C.R. 110, and RJR — MacDonald Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General), [1994] 1 S.C.R. 311. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. Chief Justice Duval Hesler, dissenting, would have allowed the appeal in part and suspended, during the proceedings, the application of s. 6 for the principals, vice principals, and teachers.