A judge in Alberta has lifted a court order that was preventing the provincial government from enforcing its ban on gender-affirming medical treatments for minors. The ruling, delivered on Thursday, December 18, 2025, by Court of King’s Bench Justice Allison Kuntz, states that the government's invocation of the notwithstanding clause removed the legal basis for the injunction.
Legal Challenge and Initial Injunction
The legal battle began when Egale Canada, Skipping Stone, and five gender-diverse youth launched a constitutional challenge against Alberta's law prohibiting puberty blockers and hormone replacement therapy for individuals under the age of 16. In June 2025, the applicants successfully secured an injunction, which temporarily blocked the legislation from coming into force while the broader court case proceeded.
That injunction was lifted this week after a hearing in a Calgary courtroom. Lawyers for the province argued that the use of Section 33 of the Charter—the notwithstanding clause—to shield the law from court challenges fundamentally undermined the legal foundation for the interim order. Justice Kuntz agreed with this position.
The Judge's Reasoning and Concerns
In her decision, Justice Kuntz acknowledged the serious concerns raised by the applicants' lawyers. They had urged the court to maintain the injunction or issue an interim order, warning of irreparable harm to vulnerable transgender and gender-diverse youth if the ban was allowed to take effect.
"Having issued the injunction, I can appreciate Egale’s concerns regarding irreparable harm to a vulnerable group of youth," Justice Kuntz stated in court. However, she concluded that the notwithstanding clause tied the court's hands. She explained that the clause allows the government to disagree with a court's assessment of Charter rights and to proceed with legislation despite those concerns.
Mitigating Measures and Next Steps
The judge noted that a ministerial order accompanying the legislation offers some mitigation. This order includes exemptions for youth who had already begun puberty blockers or hormone replacement therapy before the ban takes effect.
With the injunction now lifted, the law banning gender-affirming medical care for minors in Alberta can be enforced. The underlying constitutional challenge brought by Egale Canada and the other applicants is expected to continue its journey through the legal system, but its progress will now occur against the backdrop of an active law.
This development represents a significant moment in the ongoing national debate over provincial jurisdiction, Charter rights, and healthcare for transgender youth. The use of the notwithstanding clause in this context highlights its powerful role in allowing legislatures to override certain court decisions.
