Rania El-Alloul, the Montreal woman who was asked by a Quebec Court judge to remove her hijab during a hearing in 2015, was back in court Thursday asking a Superior Court justice to clarify the rules governing religious attire in Quebec courtrooms.

Judge Eliana Marengo told El-Alloul during a hearing in February 2015 that she would only hear El-Alloul's case if she removed her hijab.

​At the time, El-Alloul was in court trying to get her car back after it had been seized by Quebec's automobile insurance board.

Marengo told El-Alloul that a courtroom was a secular space, and she was not suitably dressed.

The judge also compared the hijab to a hat and sunglasses, which would not normally be allowed in court.

The specific rule about attire in Quebec courtrooms simply states that people appearing before judges must be "suitably dressed," with no further explanation.

The case sparked outrage across the country, with many lawyers offering to represent El-Alloul and people offering money to help cover her legal bills, suggesting that her charter rights had been violated.

Superior Court asked to weigh in on attire

El-Alloul's lawyers asked Quebec Superior Court Justice Wilbrod Décarie on Thursday for a declaratory judgment — essentially a ruling that would clarify that hijabs and other religious attire are permitted in Quebec courtrooms and that a judge can't refuse to hear witnesses on that basis.

Julius Grey and Catherine McKenzie argued that such a ruling is necessary so people who wear religious attire know if they can be heard in Quebec courts.

Without a declaration of rights, McKenzie said, "this opens the door to ask people about religious belief because of what they wear on their head."

She called that a slippery slope.

Mario Nomandin, the lawyer for Quebec's attorney general, said such a declaration was not needed.

Normandin noted the Supreme Court of Canada has already ruled that the question of religious clothing in court should be treated on a case-by-case basis.

Justice Wilbrod Décarie said he will take the arguments under advisement.

It could be weeks or months before he renders his decision.

Complaint against judge ruled 'unfounded'

El-Alloul also filed a complaint against Judge Marengo last year with the body that hears complaints against judges, the Conseil de la magistrature — or magistrates council.

It was revealed during Thursday's Superior Court hearing that the council dismissed the complaint last February, calling it "unfounded."

The council has refused repeated requests from CBC News to comment on the case, even refusing to say when or if a hearing on El-Alloul's complaint would proceed.

A spokeswoman for the council, Esther Boivin, has continually referred CBC to the body's website, saying any updates about the case would be available there.

In a copy of the letter the council sent to El-Alloul's lawyers last February that was entered into evidence Thursday, it was noted that more than 30 other complaints about the case from interested parties had also been received, and that the council would proceed with a review of some of those complaints.

The letter does not address why El-Alloul's specific complaint was dismissed.

It does suggest that some of the complaints, including El-Alloul's, "make no mention of any breach of professional ethics, either because some complainants only relate the facts reported in the media or because they don't make any accusations against the judge."

"These complaints are therefore not accepted."

Contacted by CBC Thursday afternoon, Boivin refused to make any comment on the case, saying it was confidential.