The Samara Centre for Democracy has been granted leave to intervene in a landmark Supreme Court of Canada case challenging Quebec’s controversial secularism law, Bill 21. The law prohibits public sector workers in authority—like teachers, police officers, and judges—from wearing religious symbols while on duty. Bill 21 was enacted using the Charter’s notwithstanding clause, or Section 33.

The Samara Centre will urge the Court to consider how current technology-fueled polarization affects the function of Section 33. We will also demonstrate how laws like Bill 21, which affect individual rights, can discourage civic engagement across a range of communities. The Samara Centre will be represented by Warda Shazadi Meighen and Allan Rock via Landings LLP.

This marks the first time in the Samara Centre's nearly two-decade history that it is serving as an intervenor. We have put together an explainer below that covers what this means and why it matters. 

What's an Intervenor? 

• An intervenor or “friend of the court” is neutral and offers their unique perspective and expertise to be useful to the court. They do not support one party or another or introduce new issues. Intervenors are common in Supreme Court proceedings and can include non-profits, individuals, corporations and other organizations.
  

Why Does Being an Intervenor Matter?

• Intervenors have received permission from the court to be part of the proceedings which provides a way to be engaged in the judicial process and shape the law with their knowledge and expertise. For the Samara Centre, being an intervenor introduces the legal community to our work and provides a new, non-partisan avenue for furthering our mission of strengthening Canada’s democracy. 

Learn more about Bill 21 by visiting Policy Options, the digital magazine of the Institute for Research on Public Policy. And check out Episode 3 of the Group Chat podcast to learn more about the notwithstanding clause.

‍

Photo by Dig deeper, licensed under CC BY 4.0.