MONTREAL, QC: The Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms announces that a key hearing is scheduled for Friday, March 6, 2026, in a constitutional challenge brought by a Quebec teacher who was ordered to conceal a student’s gender transition from the child’s parents.
The case stems from a Quebec Ministry of Education Guide directing schools to affirm the self-declared gender of students aged 14 and over while maintaining confidentiality from parents. In 2023, a Montreal high school instructed a teacher to use male pronouns for a 14-year-old female student at school, but to use female pronouns when communicating with the student’s parents.
There was no evidence of parental abuse or safety concerns. When the teacher objected to misleading parents, she was warned that disclosure could result in her termination.
With the support of lawyers funded by the Justice Centre, she filed a constitutional challenge, arguing that the policy violates her freedom of conscience and freedom of expression under section 2(a) and section 2(b) of the Charter, and undermines parental rights protected under section 7, which guarantees the right to life, liberty, and security of the person.
The March 6 hearing will focus on a dispute over confidentiality.
Our Duty Canada, which has intervened in the case, filed affidavits from parents of transgender-identifying youth and from young adults who have detransitioned. These individuals are seeking a confidentiality order to protect their identities, citing concerns about harassment and retaliation. Juritrans, another intervenor, is opposing that request.
Constitutional lawyer Olivier Séguin says the Court must ensure that those directly affected can safely participate in what is expected to be a landmark case.
“This case will likely become a leading decision in Quebec, and potentially across Canada, on secrecy policies in schools and freedom of conscience,” said Mr. Séguin.
“Parents and detransitioners should not be forced to expose highly personal information without appropriate confidentiality protections,” he added.
A decision on the confidentiality issue is expected following the March 6 hearing. The broader constitutional challenge will continue thereafter.
