Thread by @litui

I am not a lawyer, but I'll try to break this down. As the QB twitter notes, this is not a final ruling on constitutionality, but a decision on an application for injunctive relief (a pause on enforcement) on GSA reqs in the School Act. #abed #abpoli

Hon. Justice Kubik applies a standard 3 part test for injunctive relief: 1) serious constitutional issue to be tried, 2) compliance w/provisions would result in irreparable harm, 3) if the injunction is granted, does the benefit to the applicant outweigh the potential harm?

For part 1 on section 16.1 of the School Act, Kubik finds that there is a serious constitutional issue. Again this isn't a decision on that issue, just a confirmation that the conflict between parents' and childrens' Charter rights is important enough to consider in court.

Part 2 gets messy due to competing evidence. First, there are the applicant submissions. Theresa Ng (of the "Informed Albertans" blog) submitted an affidavit with sexually explicit things Kubik finds have no evidence of anything to do with GSAs or have ever been given to students

Next up under part 2 is the "ideological sex clubs" claim, a term Kubik notably doesn't reference. Particularly important is that Kubik sees no problems with provision of sexual orientation and gender identity info to children at some GSAs or affirmation of gender identity. 👍

Then comes a bunch of anecdotal evidence from parents about bad experiences of children in GSAs. I personally think the applicants viewed this as something of a trump card in their case. Kubik can't rely on hearsay and can't find causal relationship between GSAs and the stories.

Then comes testimony from "experts" including, for the applicants, Dr. Quentin van Meter, the Vice-President of the American College of Pediatricians (ACPeds). "a fringe anti-LGBT hate group that masquerades as [AAP] to push anti-LGBT junk science" splcenter.org/fighting-hate/…

Kubik sorts out that van Meter's evidence relies on the sketchy parents' evidence already tossed, and his medical opinion contradicts well-established standards of care. He also admitted GSAs support LGB kids, so Kubik rejects his claim that GSAs cause harm.

Next up is Dr. Miriam Grossman, a physician who rails against "Marxist approaches" and believes sex ed to be "based on liberal lies and politically correct propaganda". She has previously been heard speaking publicly against the Ontario sex ed curriculum. Her facebook is...well..

Kubik swiftly disregards Grossman's evidence of harm in GSAs (that they're disseminating false information, encouraging meds and transition, etc.). Further, Kubik points out gender identity rights are legal reality in Alberta, and Grossman's, unsurprisingly, out of touch.

Evidence provided to show the legislation has benefit LGBTQ+ students and schools including that provided by the province and @YYCsexualhealth was "uncontroverted". Preventing disclosures of GSA membership to parents supported the creation of GSAs and GSA membership.

Last up for experts, we have Dr. Kevin Alderson, a known LGBTQ+ researcher and clinical psychologist (I used his services years ago) in Calgary. He provided research which confirms anecdotal evidence from @YYCsexualhealth. Kubik fails to find proof of irreparable harm in part 2.

Part 3 is the "balance of convenience" where evidence of harm if the pause on enforcement of legislation is granted is weighed against the benefit. Relying on studies for LGBTQ+ students without GSAs, Kubik denies the injunction on section 16.1 of the School Act.

Whew, through that section! Next up, section 45.1 of the School Act, mandating schools to demonstrate compliance with 16.1. Again, Kubik applies the 3 part test. The applicants claim they can't comply for religious reasons.

For part 1, Kubik relies on the recent SCC #TWU decision's result that "Religious beliefs can coexist alongside respect and tolerance for others". Given the values in 45.1 are common public interest, Charter, and human rights values, Kubik finds no serious issue to be tried.

For part 2, Kubik again takes the 2018 #TWU decision into consideration. Further, she relies on the province's evidence that immediate threat to the schools is unlikely given even the ministry considers revocation of accreditation to be a nuclear option.

For part 3, Kubik looks to a recent Federal Court decision (2018 FC 102) regarding the Canada Summer Jobs Program attestation requirement, denying an injunction due to potential for irreparable harm to the public interest.

Compliance is still required with or without the attestation to serve policy goals including "recognition and protection of LGBTQ+ rights". No go for the applicant schools on part 3 either, so the application fails. No injunctive relief for religious schools in this case! FIN

That was fun. Might do something like this for the final decision too. Not sure if this is too much explanation, or just redundant since you can read the text yourself, but rewording and simplifying like this helps me to process everything going on too.

@threadreaderapp unroll