This One Simply Will Not Survive A Constitutional Challenge
Meanwhile the BC Human wRongs tribunal gets payed to put people through the meatgrinder of Court
…………………………………………. BC Civil wRongs tribunal latest outrage ABBOTSFORD, BC: The Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms announces that the BC Human Rights Tribunal is being challenged before the BC Supreme Court for imposing a $10,000 penalty on private speech. In January 2025, the Tribunal fined British Columbian Kirstin Olsen $10,000 for privately expressing concerns about her friend’s decision. Her petition against the Tribunal was filed in the BC Supreme Court on March 21, 2025.
Kirstin Olsen and Theresa (Terry) Wiebe had been close friends for several years. Wiebe identifies as transgender. From 2014 to 2018, Olsen allowed Wiebe to move a motorhome onto her property and live there. In 2017, Wiebe informed Olsen that she had begun hormone therapy and was planning to have a mastectomy. Wiebe asked Olsen if the surgery would impact their arrangement, but Olsen declined to give an answer. Based on concerns about her own mother’s breast cancer and mastectomy and the complications that could arise from such a surgery, Olsen told Wiebe that she was uncomfortable with Weibe getting a mastectomy and that she did not support the decision. Olsen and Wiebe continued to be on friendly terms, and Olsen continued to allow Wiebe to live on her property for $200 per month. Olsen even paid for Wiebe to return to BC from the Yukon after Wiebe had been hospitalized due to what appeared at the time to be a complication from hormone therapy. After Wiebe had gotten into a number of arguments with other people on Olsen’s property, however, Olsen asked Wiebe to leave in 2018. Olsen’s reasons for asking Wiebe to leave had nothing to do with Wiebe’s transition. Soon after, Wiebe filed a discrimination complaint against Olsen with the BC Human Rights Tribunal. In January 2025, the Tribunal released its decision.
While the Tribunal found that the eviction was not related to Wiebe’s transgender identity, the Tribunal decided that Olsen’s comments expressing concern about the decision to get a mastectomy were discriminatory. For “injury to dignity,” the Tribunal ordered Olsen to pay Wiebe $10,000 . Nowhere in the decision did the Tribunal consider the impact of the fine on Olsen’s freedom of expression – protected by section 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In her petition to the Court, Olsen also points out that her comments were not directed in any way toward Wiebe’s gender identity. On the contrary, Wiebe and Olsen had remained on friendly terms even while Wiebe had undergone a gender identity transition and hormone treatments. “It is very concerning to see a government tribunal policing private communications between friends, and imposing a $10,000 penalty, without giving any heed to the fact that Canada’s Charter guarantees freedom of expression,” stated constitutional lawyer Marty Moore. “A comment of concern for a friend is very different than evicting someone from their home on the basis of their race, religion, sex or other protected personal characteristic. The BC Human Rights Tribunal should focus on combatting genuine cases of discrimination rather than policing speech.”
Thanks to the generosity of donors, the Justice Centre has been able to provide Chris Barber and other Canadians with criminal defence counsel. His lawyer, Diane Magas, has spent 45 days in court over the past 31 months, challenging the Crown’s prosecution every step of the way.
For the criminal defence of Chris Barber alone, the Justice Centre has received invoices for $217,117 in the past 31 months. We have also previously paid invoices for $122,272 to defend Tamara Lich against the unjust prosecution that she has been facing since February 2022.
Will you partner with us in the defence of Chris Barber?
Your donation of $500, $100, $50 or any other amount will help us cover these legal expenses. Your support will ensure that we can continue to fight for Chris and other Canadians whom we are defending against political prosecutions. As a registered charity, we will send you an official tax receipt in 2025, for all donations you make in 2024.
Essentially, by defending Chris, we are defending the Charter freedoms of expression, association and peaceful assembly on behalf of all Canadians.
Peaceful protests, attended by Canadians like Chris Barber, belong on Parliament Hill. The violent suppression of peaceful protests should have no place in Canada, nor should citizens ever face criminal prosecutions over simply exercising their Charter freedoms peacefully.
Thank you for your generosity in supporting the Justice Centre’s work to defend the free society.
Yours sincerely,
John Carpay, B.A., LL.B. President Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms
ST. CATHARINES, ON: May 15, 2024 The Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms is pleased to announce that two charges against federal party leader Maxime Bernier have been withdrawn. The charges stemmed from his 2021 attendance at a protest against Ontario’s Stay-at-Home Order in Niagara Falls, Ontario.
The Justice Centre provided for lawyers to represent Mr. Bernier. The charges against him were withdrawn on May 14, 2024, in the Ontario Court of Justice (Provincial Offences Division) at the request of the prosecutor after Mr. Bernier donated to a Niagara Region charity.
On April 17, 2021, Mr. Bernier attended a peaceful protest in Niagara Falls, Ontario. The protest started at the Clifton Hill War Memorial and moved across the street to the Oakes Garden Theatre where a crowd of approximately 500 people listened to various speakers, including Mr. Bernier. For his participation, Mr. Bernier was charged with failing to comply with the Stay-at-Home Order and with failing to comply with an order under the Reopening Ontario Act.
At the time, the province’s Stay-at-Home Order prohibited citizens from leaving their residences unless it was for one of 29 purposes deemed “essential” by the Ontario government.
Mr. Bernier is a former Cabinet Minister under the Conservative Government of Stephen Harper. He held ministerial portfolios in Industry, Foreign Affairs, and State. He was chair of the National Defence Select Committee from 2009 to 2011. In 2018, he left the CPC and founded the People’s Party of Canada.
Chris Fleury, lawyer for Mr. Bernier, says, “With the exception of Randy Hillier’s challenge of the Stay-at-Home-Order and our ArriveCAN challenge, this was the last ticket case that we were defending in Ontario. We are slowly putting this shameful period behind us.”
Former Ontario provincial politician Randy Hillier continues his fight against the Stay-at-Home Order with an appeal following the loss of his constitutional challenge to that Order. Mr. Hillier’s hearing is scheduled at the Ontario Court of Appeal in September.
Details on the ArriveCAN challenge can be found on the Justice Centre’s website here.
Chris Fleury continues, “While we would have preferred that no one who attended this protest was charged in the first place, this is an excellent outcome for Mr. Bernier. Ontario’s Stay-at-Home Order was unnecessary, unscientific, and ultimately harmful. It is encouraging that prosecutions of this nature are finally coming to a close.”
Online Harms Act threatens free expression in Canada
Posted On: February 29, 2024FeaturedNews ReleasesStatement
Online Harms Act threatens free expression in Canada
On February 26, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada Arif Virani introduced Bill C-63, the Online Harms Act, in the House of Commons. The Online Harms Act is presented by the government as a means to promote the online safety of persons in Canada and reduce harmful content online. The Online Harms Act would impose severe penalties for online and offline hate speech, including life imprisonment, which is the most severe criminal punishment in Canada. This new legislation would establish a new Digital Safety Commission with power to enforce new regulations created by the federal cabinet. The Canadian Human Rights Commission would acquire new powers to prosecute and punish non-criminal hate speech.
Good intentions should be applauded
Although the Online Harms Act seriously threatens free expression in Canada, there are good intentions behind some of its provisions. It is a laudable goal to force online platforms to remove revenge porn and other non-consensual sharing of intimate images, content that bullies children, content that sexually victimizes children, content that encourages children to harm themselves, and content that incites violence, terrorism or hatred.
Unnecessary duplication of the Criminal Code
However, good intentions do not justify passing additional laws that duplicate what is already prohibited by Canada’s Criminal Code. Additional laws that duplicate existing laws are a poor substitute for good law enforcement.
Section 162.1(1) of Canada’s Criminal Code already prohibits online and offline publication of an intimate image without consent. Section 163 already prohibits publication of obscene materials and child pornography. Thus, it is already illegal to post online content that sexually victimizes a child or revictimizes a survivor.
Section 264(1) already prohibits criminal harassment. Section 319(1) already prohibits the public incitement of hatred towards a group that is identifiable by race, ethnicity, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression and other personal characteristics. Section 59(1) criminalizes sedition: advocating the use of force to achieve governmental change within Canada. Sections 83.21 and 83.22 criminalize instructing to carry out terrorist activity; any online content that incites terrorism is already illegal.
Further, Section 22 of Canada’s Criminal Code prohibits counselling, procuring, soliciting or inciting another person “to be a party to an offence.” Any person who counsels, procures, solicits or incites another person to be a party to an offence will be found guilty if the person receiving such counsel commits the offence in question. This applies to terrorism and other violent crimes, and even to minor criminal offenses like shoplifting. Further, section 464 of the Criminal Code criminalizes counselling another person to commit an offence even if that offence is not committed.
Those who support the Online Harms Act should explain why they believe that existing legislation is inadequate to address “harmful” online expression.
New government bodies to censor online speech
If passed into law, the Online Harms Act will create a new Digital Safety Commission to enforce compliance with new regulations created by the federal cabinet. This Digital Safety Commission will have the power to regulate nearly any person or entity operating as a “social media service” in Canada. Any person or social media service found to have permitted “harmful content” would face penalties. The severity of the penalties would be established by the federal cabinet. The creators and users of online content will self-censor to avoid the risk of running afoul of the new regulations and government-imposed censorship. The Online Harms Act provides that an Order of the Digital Safety Commission may be converted into an Order of the Federal Court and enforced like a Court Order. This could result in people operating social media services being fined and imprisoned for contempt of court if they refuse to censor Canadians’ speech.
Pre-emptive punishment for crimes not committed
The Online Harms Act, if passed into law, will add section 810.012 to the Criminal Code, which will permit pre-emptive violations of personal liberty when no crime has been committed. This repudiates centuries of legal tradition that rightly reserved punishment for what a person had done, not for what a person might do. Under this new provision, a complainant can assert to a provincial court that they “fear” that someone will promote genocide, hate or antisemitism. If the judge believes that there are “reasonable grounds” to justify the fear, the court can violate the liberty interests of the accused citizen by requiring her or him to do any or all of the following:
wear an ankle bracelet (electronic monitoring device)
obey a curfew and stay at home, as determined by the judge
abstain from alcohol, drugs, or both
provide bodily substances (e.g. blood, urine) to confirm abstinence from drugs or alcohol
not communicate with certain designated persons
not go to certain places, as determined by the judge
surrender her or his legally owned and legally acquired firearms
In other words: a citizen who has not committed any crime can be subjected to one or more (or all) of the above conditions just because someone fears that that person might commit a speech crime in future. Further, if the person who has committed no crime fails to agree to these court-ordered violations of her or his personal liberty, she or he could be sentenced to up to two years in prison.
Our criminal justice system is not supposed to function this way. Violating the liberty of citizens through pre-emptive punishment, when no crime has been committed (and quite possibly when no crime will be committed), is a radical departure from centuries of common law tradition. The respect that our legal system has for individual rights and freedoms means that an accused person is presumed innocent until proven guilty by way of a fair trial, held before an independent and impartial court. We do not punish the innocent, nor do we restrict their liberty based on what they might do. The mere fear that harmful expression may occur is not a legitimate basis for court-ordered imprisonment or other conditions that violate personal liberty.
Life imprisonment for words spoken
For the existing Criminal Code offence of advocating for genocide, the Online Harms Act would raise the maximum penalty from five years in jail to life imprisonment. Free societies recognize the distinction between speech and actions. The Online Harms Act blurs that distinction.
Considering the inherent difficulty in determining whether a person has actually “advocated for genocide,” the punishment of a five-year prison term is already an adequate deterrent for words alone.
Federal cabinet can censor speech without input from Parliament
The Online Harms Act, if passed into law, would give new powers to the federal cabinet to
pass regulations (which have the same force of law as legislation passed by Parliament) that place prohibitions or obligations on social media services. This includes passing regulations that impose fines or other consequences (e.g., the removal of a licence or the shutting down of a website) for non-compliance. New regulations can be created by the federal cabinet in its sole discretion, and do not need to be debated, voted on or approved by Parliament. Parliamentary proceedings are public. Any political party, or even one single MP, can raise public awareness about a Bill that she or he disagrees with, and can mobilize public opposition to that Bill. Not so with regulations, which are deliberated in secret by the federal cabinet, and that come into force without any public consultation or debate.
Apart from a federal election held once every four years, there is no meaningful way to hold cabinet to account for the draconian censorship of social media services by way of regulations and the harsh penalties that may be imposed for hosting “harmful content.” The federal cabinet can also decide what number of “users” the “social media service” needs to have in order to trigger federal regulation of content, or the federal cabinet can simply designate a social media service as regulated, regardless of the number of its users.
New censorship powers for Canadian Human Rights Commission
The Online Harms Act, if passed into law, will give the Canadian Human Rights Commission new powers to prosecute and punish offensive but non-criminal speech by Canadians if, in the subjective opinion of unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats, they deem someone’s statement to be “hateful.” The Online Harms Act will empower Canadians offended by non-criminal expression to file complaints against their fellow citizens.
Those who are prosecuted by the Human Rights Commission cannot defend themselves by establishing that their supposedly “hateful” statement is true, or that they had reasonable grounds for believing that their statement was true.
Those found guilty by the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal can be required to pay as much as $50,000 to the government, plus up to $20,000 to the person(s) designated as “victims” by the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal. These significant financial penalties will discourage or eliminate necessary discussion on controversial but important issues in our society.
Advocates for censorship often stress the fact that human rights prosecutions are not criminal. It is true that those found guilty of violating vague speech codes by the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal do not suffer the consequences of a criminal record. However, those who are prosecuted for expressing their beliefs face the difficult choice of having to spend tens of thousands of dollars on legal bills or having to issue an abject apology. Regardless of whether they choose to defend themselves against the complaint or not, they may still be ordered to pay up to $20,000 to the offended party or up to $50,000 to the government, or up to $70,000 to both.
Many Canadians will continue to exercise their Charter-protected freedom of expression, but many will self-censor to avoid the risk of being prosecuted by the Canadian Human Rights Commission.
Anonymous complaints: no right to face one’s accuser
The Online Harms Act, if passed into law, will allow complaints to be filed against Canadians in secret, such that the citizen who is prosecuted by the Canadian Human Rights Commission loses the ancient and well-founded right to face and question one’s accuser. This repudiates centuries of common law tradition requiring the legal process to be public and transparent.
The pretext for eliminating this necessary and long-standing legal protection is that some complainants might be subjected to “threats, intimidation or discrimination.” This ignores the fact that threats and intimidation are already Criminal Code offences, and any illegal discrimination can be addressed by way of a new and separate complaint. Those filing complaints about expression should be accountable for their decision to do so; this is an inherent and necessary component of both criminal and civil legal proceedings.
No need to establish that someone was harmed
If the Online Harms Act is passed into law, the Canadian Human Rights Commission will not even require a victim in order to prosecute a citizen for what she or he has said. For example, a man in Vancouver can file an anonymous complaint against a woman in Nova Scotia who made disparaging online remarks about a mosque in Toronto, regardless of whether that mosque’s members were harmed, or even offended, by the post. No actual victims are required for the Canadian Human Rights Commission to find guilt or to impose penalties. Nor does a victim need to prove that he or she suffered loss or damage; feeling offended by alleged “hate” is all that is needed to become eligible for financial compensation.
Conclusion
For reasons set out here above, the Online Harms Act will harm freedom of expression in Canada if it is passed into law. Many Canadians will self-censor to avoid being prosecuted by the Canadian Human Rights Commission. Canadians who do not self-censor, by practicing courage and by continuing to exercise their Charter-protected freedom of expression, will still see their online expression removed from the internet by the operators of social media websites and platforms. These operators will seek to avoid running afoul of Mr. Trudeau’s new regulations. Everyone will live in fear of the Digital Safety Commission.
The Justice Centre urges all Members of Parliament to vote against this legislation.
Chilliwack Board of School Trustees faces legal action over freedom of expression concerns
[One of the ways lefish school boards silence parent delegation is by turning off the microphone, claiming that the remarks are discriminatory. Usually they are not, but, even if so, so what: The TAXPAYERS have a Charter right to petition their elected representatives.]
A grandmother is suing a B.C. school board she says violated her rights by shutting her down at a public meeting.
Lynda Di Armani is taking the Chilliwack Board of School Trustees to court after being interrupted and having her microphone cut off when she attempted to raise attention to a conflict of interest she said one of the board members had.
Di Armani, a grandmother and former school employee, began her time in the meeting by saying that trustee Teri Westerby had brought forward a motion about flying a pride flag during pride month, despite being the director of marketing for the local pride society.
Board chair Willow Rechelt and vice-chair Carin Bondar interrupted Di Armani and claimed her statements were “discriminatory.”
Di Armani was interrupted several times and her microphone was cut off, before she was eventually told to sit down before she had finished speaking, according to video of the meeting.
Di Armani alleges in a lawsuit filed by the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms (JCCF) that the board’s treatment of her violated her Charter right to freedom of expression.
“Elected officials exercising government power must respect Canadians’ Charter freedoms. The Chilliwack School Board’s actions show a disregard for not only my client’s freedom of expression but also for the listening public, who have a right to hear diverse views at Board meetings,” said Marty Moore, Di Armani’s lawyer.
The allegation has not been proven in court and the Chilliwack school board did not respond to a request for comment from True North.
While the chair is authorized to cut off the remarks of speakers who don’t comply with their bylaw, the chair is not allowed to silence people simply because of disagreement with what they are saying, the JCCF says.
Di Armani is petitioning the court for a declaration that the board overstepped its bounds and violated her Charter rights. Additionally, she is seeking court orders to prevent similar behaviours in the future and to permit the public to record these meetings on their own devices.
Upon entry, Di Armani alleges she was mandated to sign a declaration confirming she would not record the session. This policy, Di Armani contends, means the board retains exclusive control over the meeting’s recordings, potentially allowing for selective muting or editing, thereby infringing upon the public’s right to fully hear, listen, and weigh alternative viewpoints. (True North, October 20, 2023)
It seems obvious that freedom of expression is fundamental to a well-functioning free society.
But does this also include freedom of expression for nurses, accountants, teachers, engineers and other professionals?
While some establishment voices in Canada will try to tell you and I that there is a distinction between professionals and the general public, the Justice Centre is here to remind these powers that, in no uncertain terms, there is no difference.
Professionals in all fields deserve to be able to express their opinions, whether it’s convenient for industry gatekeepers or not.
Silencing and punishing Canada’s doctors, lawyers and psychologists for expressing unpopular opinions is unconstitutional.
How Dr. Jordan Peterson is being censored by the College of Psychologists of Ontario may well be the most prominent example. And let’s not forget British Columbia nurse Amy Hamm, whom the Justice Centre is defending against the BC College of Nurses and Midwives, which is conducting disciplinary proceedings against Amy Hamm because she stated publicly that there are only two genders.
Saskatchewan nurse Leah McInnes is now facing the same intimidation and censorship after daring to criticize the government’s vaccine mandates and attending a peaceful protest in September 2021.
As Leah McInnes would soon find out, merely by stating her opinions about government policies, she slighted a healthcare establishment that prioritized conformity, uniformity and blind obedience.
The College claims that no “mandates” were ever brought into force in Saskatchewan, and on that basis claims that Leah’s public statements about “mandates” amounted to “misinformation”, “disinformation” or “misleading” information. Of note, virtually the entire media apparatus, government officials and medical authorities have frequently referred to the government’s vaccine policies as “mandates” in Saskatchewan and across the country.
When taking on this case, our lawyers had a sobering reflection…
What happens when professionals tasked with the responsibility of looking after our health can be silenced for doing so openly? For exercising their independent professional judgment about medicine and science?
Or, perhaps more pertinently, what happens when well meaning, truth-seeking professionals speak out against the professional establishments that employ them?
Today in Canada, government-sponsored professional regulators–most notably in the medical space, such as the College of Registered Nurse’s of Saskatchewan (CRNS)–are increasingly taking on a brand new role by insisting that they are the final arbiters of what is true and what is not.
Freedom of expression in Canada is taking a back seat to power, control and obedience–even amongst our most educated and acclaimed sectors like medicine and law.
It’s becoming blatantly clear to our legal team, as well as to so many hard-working professionals who toil in silence every single day, that vexatious allegations of misconduct made by professional regulators, thrown at individuals merely for expressing an opinion that may undermine the regulators’ influence, has nothing to do with misconduct at all…
… it has everything to do with power and control.
The culture of control in Canada’s most coveted professions must be reined in.
As in the case of Leah McInnes, non-descript allegations of ‘misinformation’ and ‘disinformation’ are used as a cudgel in disciplinary hearings by self-interested industry hall monitors to silence voices and opinions that differ from their own.
By defending brave, critical thinking, and selfless healthcare professionals like Leah McInnes, the Justice Centre is sending a clear message directly to occupational regulators everywhere:
Their political interests and their obsession for complete conformity does not and will not ever supersede the fundamental Charter rights of Canadians. Period.
Our legal team knows that Leah McInnes is on the right side of the law in this case because we’ve won on this issue before!And we know we can WIN MORE CASES just like this one if we could only stretch our litigation budget a bit further…
That’s right. In November 2020, the Justice Centre successfully defended Dr. Chris Milburn from disciplinary action being considered against him by the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Nova Scotia.
A group of 14 activists filed a complaint against Dr. Milburn for writing an op-ed in which he opined that, while police and jail guards should be held to a high standard, they cannot reasonably be held responsible for inmate deaths arising from drugs, alcohol, and the often-violent consequences arising from their use.
The Justice Centre noted that attempting to have a doctor professionally disciplined for his opinions and commentary on matters of public interest amounts to bullying and should not be encouraged by the College.
As proponents of a truly free society, Canadians like you and I know that our society only improves when there is free debate, and when no power is beyond scrutiny.
Regulatory agencies must be held to the same standard as the rest of society when it comes to upholding these principles: the spirit of free and open dialogue and the right to free expression.
The Justice Centre is eager to take on more of these cases.
The more freedom of expression cases the Justice Centre can take on today, the less likely it will be that regulatory bodies will consider silencing dissent within their industries tomorrow.
Unfortunately, right now the Justice Centre can take on only a small fraction of the many very legitimate requests for legal help that come to us from across the country.
Every single one of these cases is another Canadian who needs help…
Our nation depends on free and open debate.
Such is the messy nature of democracy, a democracy worth preserving.
Sincerely,
John Carpay President Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms
P.S. Since its founding in 2010, the Justice Centre has been the tip of the spear for defending Charter rights and freedoms in Canada. Freedom of expression is a foundational liberty, without which we could not defend the rest. As healthcare and other functions like the justice system in our country encounter unprecedented dangers, the time is now to stand for free speech–the medicine that cures the disease. Only through free and open discussion–something we are very close to losing entirely in this country–will Canadians take back their lives and their safety. That discussion starts with principled citizens like you.
Charges dropped against former MP Derek Sloan and MPP Randy Hillier
Posted On: July 12, 2023FeaturedNews Releases
STRATFORD, ON: The Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms is pleased to announce that charges against Mr. Derek Sloan and Mr. Randy Hillier were dropped on Thursday, June 29, 2023. Both men allegedly attended a rally against Covid-19 lockdown measures in April 2021.
On April 8, 2021, the Ontario government declared a state of emergency over increasing cases of Covid-19. The government then implemented its most draconian measures yet by instituting an outdoor gathering ban which effectively made peaceful political protest illegal in Ontario. Mr. Sloan was a former MP, and Mr. Hillier was a sitting MPP at the time. Both believed that these lockdowns were harmful and attended these gatherings to protest the measures.
On April 25, 2021, there was a “No More Lockdowns” protest in Stratford, which the 2 men attended. At the time, the Ontario government’s regulations stated that zero persons were allowed to gather outdoors, which was a complete ban on the freedom of assembly. The Ontario government did this despite the fact most experts agree that spread of respiratory viruses at short duration, outdoor events are extremely limited. Mr. Sloan and Mr. Hillier each faced a maximum fine of $100,000 for attending this protest.
The prosecutor agreed to drop the charges in exchange for a modest charitable donation or volunteer work. Mr. Sloan made the charitable donation and Mr. Hillier volunteered at a food bank in Lanark County.
“The Ontario government’s lockdowns, which effectively banned any political protesting whatsoever, were a grave threat to our freedom in Canada. Restrictions may be over for now, but there was no indication how long they would last at the time. 2 weeks became 2 months which became almost 2 years of failed COVID policies.”, says Mr. Sloan. “I am proud to have stood against this tyranny with many other brave Canadians. The Stratford Prosecutor made the right choice, and it is now up to other prosecutors in other districts to drop these meaningless charges. One day, history, and the courts, will concur that these lockdowns were unwarranted and a serious and unnecessary interference with Canadian’s basic freedoms,” he continued.
Both Mr. Hillier and Mr. Sloan have similar outstanding charges in Ontario. Mr. Hillier has launched a Charter challenge against the lockdowns that banned all outdoor protests, and will argue that they were an unjustifiable infringement of his rights. The hearing is set for July 27-28, 2023.
We are defending kids and families by fighting woke school boards Help us keep the pressure on!
We are on the frontlines of the culture war, defending the Charter rights of teachers, trustees, and parents to express their concerns at public school boards and in public spaces. However, empowered ideological forces are seeking to silence any debate at these meetings that challenge viewpoints, particularly about sexuality, gender, and racism.
Our lawyers are taking school boards to court.
If Canadians, including our elected school trustees, are not free to raise concerns at public school board meetings, our children will bear the consequences. The Justice Centre is committed to defending freedom of expression, transparency, and accountability at public school boards. We need your help to keep up this defence!
Linda Stone was silenced but will not be cancelled
Ontario trustee Linda Stone raised concerns about the Durham District School Board’s proposed policies. So they tried to cancel her.
Trustee Linda Stone was censured by the Durham District School Board and excluded from committee meetings for exercising her freedom of expression and for voicing her constituents’ concerns about the Board’s policies around race, sexuality, and gender. As of February 2023, she has also been barred from attending any Board committee meetings for the rest of this year. With the help of Justice Centre lawyers, Ms. Stone has filed an application for judicial review against the DDSB in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice for censoring her speech and interfering with her ability to fulfil her role as an elected official. WATCH: Her story in her own words.
Censored teacher Carolyn Burjoski’s hearing takes place June 2023
Former teacher, Carolyn Burjoski, from the Waterloo Region District School Board in Ontario, was expelled from a public school board meeting after she called out books for their age-inappropriateness and sexually explicit content. Watch her January 2022 delegation here. Justice Centre lawyers will argue in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice that the decision to muzzle Ms. Burjoski was a violation of her Charter right to freedom of expression. A hearing date has been set for the week of June 5, 2023.
“It is sad that this even needs to be said, but politicians need to protect women and girls unequivocally by ensuring there are safe spaces where no biological male may enter. This includes public changerooms, bathrooms, and women’s shelters. Spaces are safe for women and girls when, for example, they can change clothes without needing to worry that someone with male anatomy will enter the changeroom and see them naked and vulnerable. Women and girls in women’s changerooms should not have to worry about being exposed to male genitalia.”
BC Nurse’s license on the line for believing women deserve private spaces
Amy Hamm drew public attention by endorsing a Vancouver billboard stating “I JK Rowling”. That led two individuals to complain about her work to the British Columbia College of Nurses and Midwives (BCCNM), despite having never been cared for by her. Like Rowling, Amy believes that women and girls deserve private spaces where males may not enter. The BCCNM launched an official investigation and disciplinary proceedings against Ms. Hamm, igniting a case that will have broad implications for regulated professionals who dare to express views outside of approved ideological orthodoxy. With the support of a legal team provided by the Justice Centre, she has been subjected to many rounds of official disciplinary hearings and will be facing additional hearings this fall.
Crown Drops Covid Charge Against BC Pastor who Opened his Church for Prayer and Reflection
Posted On: November 16, 2022
Creston, BC: The Justice Centre is pleased that the Crown has dropped the charge against Pastor David Ripley of Grace Christian Fellowship, who was personally ticketed for allegedly violating a provincial health order.
The Provincial Health Orders issued by Dr. Bonnie Henry during the final months of 2020 prohibited in-person worship services – entirely. In carefully reading the document, Pastor Ripley found a particular clause allowing people to attend houses of worship for prayer and reflection. The local public authorities he called, including the Mayor, the fire chief and the RCMP, confirmed his understanding that the Provincial Health Order permitted him to open his church for prayer and reflection. So Pastor Ripley opened up the church on Sunday mornings, roped off pews to ensure physical distancing and complied with the public health guidance. There was no singing, no preaching. The people who came prayed and read Scriptures.
On January 3, 2021, as a small number of individuals attended Grace Christian Fellowship for prayer and reflection, two RCMP cruisers pulled up on the property. The Pastor’s wife Gina showed them the Order permitting attendance at houses of worship for prayer and reflection. The officers took issue with the number of cars in the parking lot, but otherwise did not challenge the language of the Order or the actions of the church.
Later that day, however, RCMP officers arrived at the Ripleys’ residence and issued Pastor Ripley a ticket, fining him $2,300 for allegedly violating the Provincial Health Order.
After more than a dozen preliminary court appearances by Justice Centre lawyers on behalf of Pastor Ripley, and the filing of a Notice of Constitutional Question challenging the constitutionality of Dr. Henry’s Order, the first phase of the trial to determine whether Pastor Ripley violated the Order was set to run on November 22-23, 2022, at the Creston Law Courts.
On Tuesday, November 15, 2022, the Crown directed a stay of proceedings on the charges against Pastor Ripley.
“The unjustified intrusions of government into the homes and churches of Canadians in the name of Covid enforcement is a stain on Canada’s free and democratic society,” states Justice Centre Lawyer Marty Moore. “Pastor Ripley was attempting to follow public health orders and serve the needs of his congregation. There was no justification for forcing him through nearly two years of court appearances and legal processes. He is relieved to have this behind him.”
JK Rowling”. That led two individuals to complain about her work to the British Columbia College of Nurses and Midwives (BCCNM), despite having never been cared for by her. Like Rowling, Amy believes that women and girls deserve private spaces where males may not enter. The BCCNM launched an official investigation and disciplinary proceedings against Ms. Hamm, igniting a case that will have broad implications for regulated professionals who dare to express views outside of approved ideological orthodoxy. With the support of a legal team provided by the Justice Centre, she has been subjected to many rounds of official disciplinary hearings and will be facing additional hearings this fall. 