Subscribe To Our Newsletter
.svg){kind=small}
New initiatives, podcast episodes, and reports
.svg){kind=small}
Virtual and in-person events across Canada
.svg){kind=small}
Organization announcements
On March 26, 2026, the Samara Centre for Democracy was proud to intervene at the Supreme Court in Hak v Attorney General of Quebec, also known as English Montreal School Board v Attorney General of Quebec. The case challenges Quebec’s controversial secularism law, Bill 21, which 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.
We urged the court to consider how the function of section 33 is shaped by online information threats such as misinformation, disinformation, and foreign interference which prevent full participation in our democracy by fueling polarization and undermining the rule of law. Digital platforms are a key space for political dialogue and Samara Centre research has found that hostile content is disproportionately targeted at minority groups. This restricts access to public discourse, potentially limiting the ability to influence public dialogue and legislative processes.
The Samara Centre argued that legislatures cannot pre-emptively use section 33. While early uses of the notwithstanding clause were largely administrative or symbolic, increasingly, it has been deployed not as a last resort but as a pre-emptive tool in restricting the rights of marginalized communities. If the Supreme Court concludes that pre-emptive use of the notwithstanding clause is permitted, the Samara Centre argued that courts should retain an essential role so that section 33 would not give a legislature the only word. Courts may still declare whether rights have been limited, preserving democratic accountability and providing a forum for minorities to engage in evidence-based discourse.
This was the Samara Centre’s first judicial intervention. Our contributions received coverage in Canadian Lawyer Magazine, the CBC, and the Toronto Star.
We are deeply appreciative of the commitment that Warda Shazadi Meighen and Allan Rock of Landings LLP brought to this intervention.
Read the Samara Centre’s Factum
%202%20(1).svg){kind=small}
New initiatives, podcasts, and reports
%201.svg){kind=small}
Virtual and in-person events
%201.svg){kind=small}
Organization announcements
On March 26, 2026, the Samara Centre for Democracy was proud to intervene at the Supreme Court in Hak v Attorney General of Quebec, also known as English Montreal School Board v Attorney General of Quebec. The case challenges Quebec’s controversial secularism law, Bill 21, which 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.
We urged the court to consider how the function of section 33 is shaped by online information threats such as misinformation, disinformation, and foreign interference which prevent full participation in our democracy by fueling polarization and undermining the rule of law. Digital platforms are a key space for political dialogue and Samara Centre research has found that hostile content is disproportionately targeted at minority groups. This restricts access to public discourse, potentially limiting the ability to influence public dialogue and legislative processes.
The Samara Centre argued that legislatures cannot pre-emptively use section 33. While early uses of the notwithstanding clause were largely administrative or symbolic, increasingly, it has been deployed not as a last resort but as a pre-emptive tool in restricting the rights of marginalized communities. If the Supreme Court concludes that pre-emptive use of the notwithstanding clause is permitted, the Samara Centre argued that courts should retain an essential role so that section 33 would not give a legislature the only word. Courts may still declare whether rights have been limited, preserving democratic accountability and providing a forum for minorities to engage in evidence-based discourse.
This was the Samara Centre’s first judicial intervention. Our contributions received coverage in Canadian Lawyer Magazine, the CBC, and the Toronto Star.
We are deeply appreciative of the commitment that Warda Shazadi Meighen and Allan Rock of Landings LLP brought to this intervention.
Read the Samara Centre’s Factum
%20(1).jpg)
%20(1).jpg)
%20(1).jpg)
.jpg)
-min.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.png){kind=tracking}
-min.jpg)
-min.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.jpg)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.jpg)
%20(1).png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
%20(1).png)
.png)
-min.png)
.jpg)
-min.jpg)
-min%20(1).jpg)
