Section 10 of Bill 62 of the Assembleé Nationale de Québec, an Act to foster adherence to the religious neutrality of the state and, in particular, to provide a framework for requests for accommodations on religious grounds in certain bodies, states that

Sections 11 and 12 provide for accommodation on religious grounds resulting from the application of section 10 of the Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms and for ministerial guidelines on how requests for such accommodations are to be dealt with, while section 15 declares that a public body may require, of any person or partnership with whom it has entered into a service contract or subsidy agreement, that the person or partnership's personnel members exercise their functions with their face uncovered if the contract or agreement relates to the provision of services that are inherent in the body's mission or that are performed in its personnel's place of work. In December 2017, the Québec Superior Court granted the Canadian Civil Liberties Association and National Council of Canadian Muslims (NCCM) an interim stay until 1 July 2018, pending the Québec Government's release of the official guidelines under section 12.

Following the release of the guidelines in May 2018, the NCCM and others sought a further stay of section 10 of Bill 62 pending a final determination on the merits of their application to have that section and section 15 of the Act declared unconstitutional. Their combined effect would be to oblige women who cover their faces for religious reasons to make a separate accommodation request from each of the agencies with which they came into contact. An accommodation request would have to be made in advance in order to do such basic things as ride the bus or metro, attend a healthcare facility, pick up a child from school, vote, attend school or go to a museum. The result would be that certain women in Québec would be faced with the daily choice of either engaging in activities that all Quebecers take for granted or expressing their sincerely held religious beliefs.

The Attorney General argued in response that, though there was a serious issue to be tried, section 10 of the Act was a minimal impairment to religious freedom that did not trigger a violation of section 2(a) of the Canadian Charter and section 3 of the Québec Charter. Blanchard JSC held that the threshold test in RJR-MacDonald Inc v Canada (Attorney General) [1995] 3 SCR 199 had been satisfied: there was a serious issue to be tried, irreparable harm would occur if the stay was not granted and the balance of convenience favoured granting it. Furthermore, the court had to be concerned not only about the legal effects of a literal interpretation of the law but also about its practical effects, both real or reasonably foreseeable. He therefore granted the application and issued an executory order staying the operation of section 10 of the Act pending a determination of the merits of the application for judicial review, irrespective of any appeal that might be lodged. [Frank Cranmer]