In the wake of the legal challenge to Bill 21 on state secularism, Quebec Attorney General Simon Jolin-Barrette has asked Supreme Court judge Mahmud Jamal to recuse himself, fearing that he “does not have the impartiality required to hear this case.”
The information, first reported by Le Devoir, was confirmed by The Canadian Press.
In a letter sent to the Supreme Court on Wednesday, the Attorney General of Quebec indicated that Judge Jamal was the president of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association (CCLA) at the time the association filed an appeal with the Superior Court to challenge the Loi sur la laïcité de l’État in June 2019.
“As president of the association, Judge Jamal was necessarily involved in some way in the preparation of this 194-paragraph proceeding, whether in its drafting, revision or simply to approve its content,” reads the letter, a copy of which was obtained by The Canadian Press.
The letter also states that “the fact that Justice Jamal had to decide questions about constitutional law raised by the association when he was its president means that he would now be the judge in a case in which he was a party.”
The Canadian Press also obtained letters from the Mouvement laïque québécois (MLQ) and the group Pour les droits des femmes du Québec (PDF Québec), which are also calling for the removal of Judge Jamal for reasons similar to those of Quebec.
However, in a letter dated June 25, the Supreme Court has already indicated that Justice Jamal does not intend to withdraw.
“(He) believes that there is no real or reasonably perceivable conflict of interest that would cause him to recuse himself,” reads the letter, a copy of which was also obtained by The Canadian Press.
Jamal was appointed to the Supreme Court of Canada on July 1, 2021. He previously served as a judge of the Ontario Court of Appeal from 2019 to 2021, according to the Supreme Court’s website. Prior to his appointment, Jamal was a lawyer with the firm Osler, Hoskin & Harcourt.
Several groups, including the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, have asked the Supreme Court to review the Quebec Court of Appeal’s ruling on Bill 21. The country’s highest court has not yet indicated whether or not it will take up the case.
The federal government has already indicated that it would participate in ay legal challenge to Bill 21 before the Supreme Court, while Quebec has always promised to defend the secularism of the state “to the end.”
Court of Appeal rules in favour of Quebec
Last February, the Court of Appeal almost entirely validated Bill 21, stating that it does not violate the linguistic rights of English school boards.
The Court of Appeal also affirmed that Quebec had the right to use the notwithstanding provision preventively, as it did in the case of Bill 21.
This was a major setback for opponents of this legislation.
Bill 21 prohibits government employees in positions of authority – including teachers – from wearing religious symbols such as the Muslim headscarf, the Jewish yarmulke, the Sikh turban, and Christian crosses.
–This report by La Presse Canadienne was translated by CityNews