The Supreme Court of Canada in Ottawa, August, 2025.Brendan Burden/The Globe and Mail
A former federal justice minister has asked the Supreme Court of Canada to allow more lawyers to appear in person for a landmark Charter case involving Quebec’s secularism law.
Allan Rock, who was justice minister from 1993 to 1997, invoked reasons of “public confidence” and the “appearance of democracy” in a letter dated Sept. 10. He is counsel for the Samara Centre for Democracy, a Toronto-based charity that promotes civic engagement. It is one of a record 38 intervenors in the Quebec secularism case.
Intervenors in Supreme Court cases are required to present their oral arguments via Zoom. Only lawyers for the main parties appear in the courtroom in Ottawa.
The case is about the constitutional validity of Quebec’s Bill 21, a 2019 law that bars public-sector workers, including teachers, from wearing religious symbols such as hijabs on the job. Quebec shielded the law with Section 33 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the notwithstanding clause, which can override an array of rights, from freedom of religion to the right to a lawyer if arrested.
A hearing at the Supreme Court hasn’t yet been scheduled.
This summer, five provincial attorneys-general, including Ontario’s and British Columbia’s, were the first intervenors to request to appear in person in the case, citing the importance of the issues at stake. The federal government then asked for the same.
Chief Justice Richard Wagner said in late August that the court would decide at a later date.
This week, Mr. Rock similarly asked for an exception to the Zoom-only rule.
“In-person hearings reinforce not only the fairness of the process but also the public appearance of democracy in action, thereby enhancing public confidence in the court’s work,” he wrote.
Bill 21 is a landmark case at the top court because the decision will reverberate in politics and law for years to come. It will be the final word from the bench on governments’ power to use the notwithstanding clause to quash the rights of Canadians.
Opponents of Bill 21 want the top court to strike down the law. But the Quebec government, led by Premier François Legault, has repeatedly argued that the province’s political autonomy is under threat.
Saskatchewan requests notwithstanding case to be folded into Bill 21 Supreme Court hearing
Mr. Legault’s government said last month that it plans to further push its secularism agenda and table legislation this fall to ban prayer in public places. The Premier previously said he may once again invoke Section 33.
The Supreme Court agreed to hear the Bill 21 case in January. In legal filings, many detailed and complicated constitutional issues have been put on the table.
It has been almost 40 years since the top court last adjudicated the notwithstanding clause in depth. A 1988 ruling effectively gave governments free rein to deploy Section 33, but the notwithstanding clause was rarely used until recent years.
In his letter, Mr. Rock said the Bill 21 case is of unique significance and raises questions that “strike at the core of Canada’s constitutional framework.” He said the record number of intervenors demonstrates the extent of public concern.
Although his letter was written on behalf of the Samara Centre, the former minister also spoke broadly about intervenors who represent various communities.
“Hearing directly from diverse Canadians in the courtroom signals the importance of considering perspectives across cultures, faiths, and communities when resolving questions of such constitutional magnitude,” he wrote.