The Quebec government is requesting that Supreme Court Justice Mahmud Jamal recuse himself from hearing the challenge to the province’s secularism law because he was board president for one of the plaintiffs.
In letters sent to the registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada, Attorney General of Quebec Bernard Roy, the Mouvement laïque québécois, as well as Pour les droits des femmes du Québec — a women’s group that has lobbied for anti-trans policies — argue Jamal’s partiality in the case.
From 2006 to 2019, Jamal was on the board of directors for the Canadian Civil Liberties Association (CCLA), which along with the National Council of Canadian Muslims, filed a legal challenge on June 17, 2019, in Quebec Superior Court to stay the application of the secularism law and declare it invalid.
Quebec’s secularism law — commonly known as Bill 21 — prevents public school teachers, police officers, judges and government lawyers, among other civil servants in positions of authority, from wearing religious symbols, such as hijabs, crucifixes or turbans, while at work.
Jamal resigned from the CCLA board on June 24, 2019, when he was appointed to the Court of Appeal for Ontario. He was nominated to the Supreme Court of Canada in 2021.
Roy argues that as president of the CCLA, Jamal was “necessarily involved in some way in the preparation” of the case, “whether through its writing, its revision or simply to approve its content.”
“In such a context, the [Procureur général du Québec] PGQ considers that a reasonable and well-informed person would fear that Justice Jamal would not have the impartiality required to hear this case,” Roy wrote.
Luc Alarie, who represents the Mouvement laïque québécois, a non-profit that promotes secularism, noted that the CCLA’s opposition to the law was established while Jamal was still part of the board, and when the CCLA had already decided to join as a plaintiff.
In response to the letters, the Supreme Court of Canada’s registrar says Jamal believes “there is no actual or reasonably perceived conflict of interest” that would lead him to recuse himself.
Jamal says he was “at no point counsel of record in the proceeding giving rise to this application for leave to appeal” and “has no recollection” of providing legal advice in the proceeding, wrote registrar Chantal Carbonneau.
