Tag Archives: Canadian Constitution Foundation

Brief to Commons Committee on Justice & Human Rights re: Bill C-9 by Canadian Constitution Foundation

Posted on by

Christine Van Geyn
Litigation Director
Canadian Constitution Foundation
cvangeyn@theccf.ca
TO: The Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights
RE: Canadian Constitution Foundation brief on Bill C-9, An Act to amend the Criminal Code
(hate propaganda, hate crime and access to religious or cultural places)
November 4, 2025
The CCF
The Canadian Constitution Foundation (“the CCF”) has prepared this brief to outline our
concerns with Bill C-9, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (hate propaganda, hate crime and
access to religious or cultural places).
The CCF is a non-partisan charity dedicated to defending Canadians’ rights and freedoms
through education, communications and litigation. The CCF is involved in dozens of cases per
year in defence of the constitution. The CCF has been involved in landmark cases involving
freedom of expression, including Saskatchewan v Whatcott, 2013 SCC 11, and Ward v Quebec,
2021 SCC 43. The CCF successfully challenged the invocation of the Emergencies Act in February
2022, where the Federal Court found the invocation was ultra vires and the regulations violated
the Charter of Rights and Freedoms’ protections of expression and security against
unreasonable searches and seizures. The decision remains under appeal. The CCF also offers
free online courses for members of the public, including courses on the fundamentals of
Canada’s constitution and a course on freedom of expression. I have co-written three books that
discuss free expression: Pandemic Panic, Free Speech in Canada and Maple’s Garden.
The CCF’s concerns
Bill C-9 proposes major changes to Canada’s hate propaganda regime. These changes will lead
to more people being investigated, charged, and prosecuted for their words. Hate against
people is wrong, and our society must confront hate and condemn it. But the criminal law is not
the right tool for every social scourge. The criminal law comes with a loss of liberty, and our
highest level of social stigma. Expanding the possibility of putting people in prison for their
words, or even being labelled hate propagandists, also risks capturing speech that may merely
offend. The scope of debate on controversial topics of public importance will be limited and
chilled if the threat of criminal sanction is expanded and looms over our civil discourse.
The Charter right to freedom of expression guaranteed in section 2(b) protects all speech,
including speech that offends, and even hate speech. The guarantee is content neutral. The
question before the courts in cases involving extreme speech is always about when limits can be
Page 1 of 7
Christine Van Geyn
Litigation Director
Canadian Constitution Foundation
cvangeyn@theccf.ca
imposed on speech, not whether speech is protected. To ensure the widest possible scope of
debate and the search for truth, it is vital that the threshold for criminal sanction of speech is
high. Bill C-9 would lower this threshold, remove safeguards against politically motivated
charges, remove political accountability for charges, would create a risk of overcharging to force
plea bargains, expand the availability of hate offences beyond the criminal law, and risks limiting
constitutionally protected protest activity.
Canadians are not safer when we do not know what people believe. The criminal law can never
remove hate from an individual’s heart. Instead, the criminal law should be oriented towards
doing what it can do: restricting violence and threats of violence, which includes intimidation,
harassment, and blockading. The concept of hatred is subjective, and when opinion is
criminalized, we make martyrs out of hatemongers and draw more attention to their vile
viewpoints. Criminalizing opinion forces hateful speech underground and online, where
individuals can get trapped in cycles of radicalization, and where hateful ideas are not
confronted with the truth. In the end, as John Stuart Mill warned in his famous defence of free
speech in On Liberty, suppressing opinions prevents the exchange of error for truth, and
deprives us of the clearer and livelier perception of the truth that comes from its collision with
falsehood.
The primary duties of Parliament are to represent the electorate, hold the executive
accountable, and uphold Canada’s constitutional democracy. Parliament has an obligation to
ensure laws it passes are in keeping with our constitution, including our constitutional
protection for freedom of expression. Some of the proposals in Bill C-9 are very likely unjustified
violations of this protection, guaranteed by the supreme law of Canada. Others are unnecessary
because they are redundant in light of Canada’s existing laws.
Accordingly, the CCF’s primary recommendation is to withdraw Bill C-9.
In the alternative, the CCF proposes six amendments that could reduce, though not eliminate,
the risk that C-9 unjustifiably violates freedom of expression.
Amendment 1: The definition of hate in Bill C-9 must exactly track the case law.
The Criminal Code prohibits the public incitement of hatred in section 319(1) and the wilful
promotion of hatred in section 319(2).
Public incitement of hatred prohibits the communication of a statement in public that incites
hatred against any identifiable group where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the
peace.
Page 2 of 7
Christine Van Geyn
Litigation Director
Canadian Constitution Foundation
cvangeyn@theccf.ca
Wilful promotion of hatred prohibits communicating statements, other than in private
communication, that wilfully promote hatred against an identifiable group.
If Parliament wishes to provide a statutory definition of “hatred” for offences in section 319 of
the Criminal Code, this statutory definition must precisely track the definition that has been
outlined by the Supreme Court as high enough to protect freedom of expression.
In R v Keegstra, [1990] 3 SCR 697, the majority of the Supreme Court held that “the term
‘hatred’ connotes emotion of an intense and extreme nature that is clearly associated with
vilification and detestation.” The court in Keegstra warned that there is a danger that a court
may improperly infer hatred from statements he or she personally finds offensive. This is why
the court recognized the need to circumscribe the definition of “hatred” in such a precise
manner.
In R v Andrews, [1990] 3 SCR 870, Cory J.A. stated that: “Hatred is not a word of casual
connotation. To promote hatred is to instil detestation, enmity, ill-will and malevolence in
another. Clearly an expression must go a long way before it qualifies within the definition in [s.
319(2)].”
More recently, in Saskatchewan v Whatcott, 2013 SCC 11, the Court reiterated that: “…the
legislative term “hatred” or “hatred or contempt” is to be interpreted as being restricted to
those extreme manifestations of the emotion described by the words “detestation” and
“vilification”.” This filters out expression which, while repugnant and offensive, does not incite
the level of abhorrence, delegitimization and rejection that risks causing discrimination or other
harmful effects” (emphasis added).
In Whatcott, Justice Rothstein struck down a Saskatchewan provision that outlawed speech that
“ridicules, belittles or otherwise affronts the dignity of” protected groups because that
definition of hatred “could capture a great deal of expression which, while offensive to most
people, falls short of exposing its target group to the extreme detestation and vilification which
risks provoking discriminatory activities against that group” (emphasis added).
The definition of hatred laid out in C-9 is a lower threshold than that set out in Keegstra.
Section 319(7) of -9 defines hatred as “the emotion that involves detestation or vilification and
that is stronger than disdain or dislike” (emphasis added).
The proposed definition removes the requirement that the speech be the “intense and
extreme”, and now merely requires that the emotion “involve” detestation or vilification rather
Page 3 of 7
Christine Van Geyn
Litigation Director
Canadian Constitution Foundation
cvangeyn@theccf.ca
than be “clearly associated” with detestation and vilification. It also lowers the standard by
defining hate as the emotion associated with detestation “or” vilification, rather than
detestation “and” vilification.
While the Minister of Justice has suggested that the intention of the bill is to reflect the case law
and paraphrase the words of the court, the most important aspect of the law, if passed, that a
future court will consider is the actual text. The intention of the Minister will likely be argued,
but Parliament does not vote on the Minister’s statements: it votes on the text. If Parliament is
to legislate the definition of hatred, it risks violating constitutional rights if it departs from the
words the court has already upheld as constitutional limits on free expression.
Recommendation 2: Maintain the requirement for attorney general consent for hate crime
offences
Currently, any prosecution for a hate propaganda offence in section 319 of the Criminal Code
requires consent of the attorney general. This requirement is an important institutional
safeguard on the abuse of this especially sensitive provision of the Criminal Code.
Determining whether someone will face a prison sentence for the words they speak requires
political accountability, and charges require a careful balancing of the public interest and the
constitutional guarantee for freedom of expression.
There are serious risks associated with removing the requirement of attorney general consent,
including the risk of arbitrary, inconsistent, or selective enforcement based on political or
ideological grounds. It also risks charges that have no chance of conviction on the basis of
speech that offends the public. This risks chilling lawful political debate and dissent.
There is an additional concern that removing attorney general consent will allow for the
possibility of private prosecutions. While private prosecutions for criminal offences are rare in
Canadian law, the subjective nature of hatred combined with the current climate of political
polarization makes the risk of abuse of private prosecutions for this type of law especially
concerning.
Recommendation 3: Remove the standalone hate offence in proposed section 320.1001(1)
The law currently treats hatred as an aggravating factor at the sentencing stage. If an offence is
motivated by hatred, the sentencing judge can take that into account and impose a more
serious sentence. This should not be changed.
Page 4 of 7
Christine Van Geyn
Litigation Director
Canadian Constitution Foundation
cvangeyn@theccf.ca
Bill C-9 proposes the creation of new standalone hate crime offences that layer on top of
another offence. And this is not confined to criminal law. Bill C-9 proposes that everyone who
commits an offence contrary to any act of Parliament that is “motivated by hatred” is guilty of a
separate offence.
This dramatically expands criminal liability. It could make quasi-criminal or even regulatory
offences criminal offences if they are “motivated” by hatred. This approach is duplicative
punishment for criminal offences, and it risks transforming non-criminal offences into criminal
offences that carry with them terms of imprisonment and the social stigma of the criminal law.
By creating the possibility of a duplicate offence with high penalties, Bill C-9 creates a risk of
overcharging. Crowns, no longer constrained by the requirement of attorney general consent,
may pressure defendants to plead guilty by layering the threat of more serious hate charges on
top of other criminal – or even quasi-criminal – charges. Hatred should remain a sentencing
consideration.
Recommendation 4: Remove the prohibition on “hate symbols”
Bill C-9 makes it an offence to wilfully promote hatred by displaying listed hate symbols,
including the Nazi Hakenkreuz, or hooked-cross1, the Nazi double Sig-Rune, also known as the
SS bolts, as well as symbols that are “principally used by, or principally associated with” listed
terrorist organizations.
To be clear, the display of these symbols to wilfully promote or incite hatred are despicable. But
the proposal in Bill C-9 is flawed for at least four reasons.
First, Canadians are not made safer if we do not know that someone down the street from our
home holds racist and evil views. We are better off knowing who holds disturbing opinions so
that we can openly confront those viewpoints, or stay away from such people. Every year our
newspapers feature at least one story about a local crank flying a Nazi symbol. And every year
we are reminded that these symbols, though horrible, are legal. Driving these symbols
underground through the criminal law grants them more power and mystique than they
deserve.
1 Bill C-9 calls this symbol the Nazi swastika, which is a common misnomer. The word swastika is a Sanskrit word for
an ancient and sacred symbol in Eastern religions like Hinduism, Buddhism, and Jainism.
Page 5 of 7
Christine Van Geyn
Litigation Director
Canadian Constitution Foundation
cvangeyn@theccf.ca
Second, the existing hate propaganda offences can already capture the use of symbols if those
symbols are used to wilfully promote or incite hatred. Under the current law, the display of
these symbols alone is not sufficient for a charge. Bill C-9 could change that. While the Minister
has suggested that this provision is intended to supplement the existing wilful promotion of
hatred offence to place more emphasis on the use of hate symbols, the text leaves significant
room for interpretation. The text could easily be read to mean that the display of these symbols
on their own can now be grounds for an offence. And to reiterate, Parliament votes on the text
of the Bill, not on the intentions of the minister, and a court interpreting the law will look first at
the text.
Prohibiting the symbols alone would also capture too much expression. While it is distasteful,
foolish and inaccurate to compare any Canadian parliamentarians to Nazis or terrorists, we
often see these comparisons made by some disaffected citizens exercising their freedom of
expression. Some of these comparisons are made using these symbols, and this common type
of political speech could now be subject to criminal sanction.
There is also too much ambiguity in the text of the provision, as it would prohibit symbols that
are “principally used by” or “associated with” terrorist groups, or symbols that “nearly
resemble” the symbols of terrorist groups or that are “likely to be confused” with those
symbols.
Recommendation 5: Remove new provisions on intimidation
Bill C-9 would make it an offence to engage in any conduct with the intent to provoke a state of
fear in a person in order to impede their access to places of worship or cultural centres.
This provision is duplicative and can lead to confusion among law enforcement. The Criminal
Code already prohibits intimidation under section 423, harassment under section 264, and
mischief under section 420. Provincial highway traffic statutes also prohibit blockading roads.
When protests blockade roads or building entrances, police can already use these tools to
remove them. The rule of law requires the enforcement of the law, not the creation of new and
increasingly narrow laws when police fail to act.
Recommendation 6: Keep the defences of truth and good faith religious opinion in section
319(3)
Page 6 of 7
Christine Van Geyn
Litigation Director
Canadian Constitution Foundation
cvangeyn@theccf.ca
There has been some suggestion that the defences to hate propaganda offences in section
319(3) of the Criminal Code should be repealed. These defences provide that no person shall be
convicted of wilful promotion of hatred if the statements were true or were a good faith
expression of an opinion on a religious subject or based on a belief in a religious text.
These defences must be maintained.
The courts have considered the religious belief defence in 319(3), and the existence of this
defence has been core in the analysis that found the offence of wilfully promoting hatred to be
a justified limit, in for example, Keegstra. Removing this defence would open up the legislation
to a new constitutional challenge. It is also worth noting that there has never been an instance
where the defence was argued successfully.
The courts have interpreted the defence as a narrow one, and found that it does not operate so
as to shield speech that wilfully promotes hatred merely because it is embedded with religious
language. The court in R v Harding, 2001 CanLII 21272 (ON CA) held that: “Although expression
of religious opinion is strongly protected, this protection cannot be extended to shield this type
of communication simply because they are contained in the same message and the one is used
to bolster the other. If that were the case, religious opinion could be used with impunity as
a Trojan Horse to carry the intended message of hate forbidden by s. 319.”
Removing the religious defence, combined with removing the requirement for attorney general
consent, would lead to investigations and charges based on good faith but misunderstood
religious dialogue, and would inevitably lead to a chill on religious debate or even good faith
political debate on moral topics out of fear of severe criminal sanction.
Page 7 of 7

Canadian Constitution Foundation Warns: Liberal Hate Crimes Bill (C-9) Raises Free Speech Concerns

Posted on by

Canadian Constitution Foundation Warns: Liberal Hate Crimes Bill (C-9) Raises Free Speech Concerns

The Canadian Constitution Foundation (CCF) is concerned that key aspects of the Carney government’s proposed hate crimes legislation would unduly infringe on freedom of expression. 

Among other changes to the Criminal Code, Bill C-9 would establish a standalone hate crime provision that would allow for up to life in prison for committing an act motivated by hatred, would create new intimidation and obstruction crimes related to buildings used for religious worship or primarily by identifiable groups, and would establish a new crime of wilfully promoting hatred by displaying certain symbols such as terrorist flags or Nazi swastikas in a public place. [But not the communist hammer and sickle or the Israeli flag.]

The CCF has identified the following concerns: 

  • Overbreadth of the hate-symbol provision (s. 319(2.2)): It could chill legitimate speech in cases where it is unclear whether a symbol is “principally associated with a terrorist group” or “resembles a symbol” outlawed under the provision;
  • Extreme sentencing under the new hate crime offence (s. 320.1001): A person who commits mischief against property motivated by hatred could face up to seven years in prison, rather than the current two years;
  • Removal of Attorney General oversight: The bill would allow police to charge a person with hate speech without receiving the Attorney General’s consent, which is an important safeguard for freedom of expression that has been part of Canada’s law for decades; and
  • Lowering the threshold for “hatred”: The definition of “hatred” added as a new section 319(7) appears to lower the bar for hate speech set by the Supreme Court of Canada in cases like R v Keegstra and R v Whatcott, which could chill speech and public debate.

CCF Executive Director Joanna Baron questioned the need for parts of the bill considering Canada already has “robust hate propaganda laws. Creating new offences for hate-motivated crimes and lowering safeguards like Attorney General oversight is unnecessary and invites excessive prosecutions,” she said. ‘The new hate symbol offence only targets displays done with the intent to promote hatred, but without Attorney General consent as a safeguard, there is a real risk that people using these symbols in art, journalism, or protest will be charged first and vindicated later,” Baron added.

“I’m also very wary that banning hate symbols could be a slippery slope,” Dehaas said. “In free countries, we ought to criminalize violence, not speech, so this sets a worrying precedent.” (Canadian Constitution Foundation, September 19, 2025)

New Cybersecurity Bill Would Let Government Secretly Cut Canadians’ Internet and Phone Access

Posted on by
New Cybersecurity Bill Would Let Government Secretly Cut Canadians’ Internet and Phone Access
The CCF has serious concerns with Bill C-8, the federal government’s proposed cybersecurity legislation, which would allow the minister of industry to secretly order telecommunications service providers to cease providing services to individual Canadians. According to the bill, the government would be able to shut down phone and internet access if it has “reasonable grounds to believe that it is necessary to do so to secure the Canadian telecommunications system against any threat, including that of interference, manipulation, disruption or degradation.” These orders would remain secret indefinitely, with the minister required only to present an annual report to Parliament on the number of orders made and their opinion on their necessity, reasonableness and utility.
The CCF fears this law could be weaponized to silence critics of the government at the whim of the minister, under the guise of vaguely posing some kind of “threat” to Canada’s telecom system. If you’re concerned by this alarming expansion of state power and the associated threats to civil liberties, use this form to write to your MP to demand changes to Bill C-8 and Bill C-2 (the Liberals’ recent “border security” bill).  

Canadian Constitution Foundation Warns Liberal Hate Crimes Bill Raises Free Speech Concerns

Posted on by
  1. s
Liberal hate crimes bill raises free speech concerns

Liberal hate crimes bill raises free speech concerns

The Canadian Constitution Foundation (CCF) is concerned that key aspects of the Carney government’s proposed hate crimes legislation would unduly infringe on freedom of expression. 

Among other changes to the Criminal Code, Bill C-9 would establish a standalone hate crime provision that would allow for up to life in prison for committing an act motivated by hatred, would create new intimidation and obstruction crimes related to buildings used for religious worship or primarily by identifiable groups, and would establish a new crime of wilfully promoting hatred by displaying certain symbols such as terrorist flags or Nazi swastikas in a public place.

The CCF has identified the following concerns: 

  • Overbreadth of the hate-symbol provision (s. 319(2.2)): It could chill legitimate speech in cases where it is unclear whether a symbol is “principally associated with a terrorist group” or “resembles a symbol” outlawed under the provision;
  • Extreme sentencing under the new hate crime offence (s. 320.1001): A person who commits mischief against property motivated by hatred could face up to seven years in prison, rather than the current two years;
  • Removal of Attorney General oversight: The bill would allow police to charge a person with hate speech without receiving the Attorney General’s consent, which is an important safeguard for freedom of expression that has been part of Canada’s law for decades; and
  • Lowering the threshold for “hatred”: The definition of “hatred” added as a new section 319(7) appears to lower the bar for hate speech set by the Supreme Court of Canada in cases like R v Keegstra and R v Whatcott, which could chill speech and public debate.

CCF Executive Director Joanna Baron questioned the need for parts of the bill considering Canada already has “robust hate propaganda laws.”

“Creating new offences for hate-motivated crimes and lowering safeguards like Attorney General oversight is unnecessary and invites excessive prosecutions,” she said.

“The new hate symbol offence only targets displays done with the intent to promote hatred, but without Attorney General consent as a safeguard, there is a real risk that people using these symbols in art, journalism, or protest will be charged first and vindicated later,” Baron added.

CCF Counsel Josh Dehaas said that while he’s pleased to see that the federal government has tailored its provisions on intimidation and obstruction of places of worship to capture criminal conduct rather than protected speech and protest, he is concerned that the new definition of “hatred” will chill legitimate expression.

“I’m also very wary that banning hate symbols could be a slippery slope,” Dehaas said. “In free countries, we ought to criminalize violence, not speech, so this sets a worrying precedent.”

Canadian Constitutional Foundation Joins Judicial Review of Ontario Human Rights Tribunal Decision Fining Elmo Mayor for Not Proclaiming Gay Pride Month

Posted on by

Group joins appeal of decision to fine mayor opposed to proclaiming Pride Month

ByDarren MacDonaldOpens in new window

Published: August 06, 2025 at 11:40AM EDT

In November 2024, the tribunal fined Mayor Harold McQuaker and the municipality of Emo, Ont., a total of $15,000. (Supplied)

The Canadian Constitution Foundation will be taking part in a judicial review of an Ontario Human Rights Tribunal decision to fine a northern Ontario town and mayor $15,000 for refusing to declare Pride Month.

In November 2024, the tribunal fined Mayor Harold McQuaker and the municipality of Emo, Ont., a total of $15,000 after an adjudicator ruled a comment by the mayor before a vote against the proclamation “proved that the vote was motivated by discrimination.”

“The CCF will argue the tribunal failed to consider Mayor McQuaker’s Charter-protected right to freedom of expression,” the group said in a news release Wednesday.

“(The decision) failed to apply the legal framework for balancing expression and the right to equality, established by the Supreme Court of Canada in Ward v. Quebec.”

Controversy began in 2020

The controversy began in 2020 when Borderline Pride asked Emo — located 200 kilometres southeast of Kenora with a population of 1,300 — to declare June Pride Month and fly or display an LGBTQ2S+ flag for a week during June.

During debate over whether to make the proclamation, McQuaker said, “There’s no flag being flown for the other side of the coin … there’s no flags being flown for the straight people.”

Council declined to raise the rainbow flag, citing the lack of a municipal flagpole, and voted 3-2 against the Pride Month proclamation.

Adjudicator Karen Dawson agreed with Borderland Pride that the mayor’s remark prior to the vote proved that the vote was discriminatory, and awarded the group $5,000 from the mayor and $10,000 from the township.

‘Human Rights 101′

In addition, the mayor and Emo’s chief administrative officer were ordered to undergo a ‘Human Rights 101’ course within 30 days.

Shortly after the decision, Borderland Pride was granted an order to garnish the mayor’s bank account, taking the $5,000 plus costs.

“Human rights tribunals exist to prevent discrimination in public services, not to censor good faith political debates,” Josh Dehaas, counsel for the CCF, said in the news release.

“The bar for limiting political speech in Canada is high, yet there’s no evidence the tribunal even considered the mayor’s expression rights.”

No date has been set for the hearing.

Canadian Constitution Foundation to Appear at Supreme Court to Challenge Executive Overreach in Parliamentary Speech Case

Posted on by
CCF to Appear at Supreme Court to Challenge Executive Overreach in Parliamentary Speech Case

CCF to Appear at Supreme Court to Challenge Executive Overreach in Parliamentary Speech Case

OTTAWA: The Canadian Constitution Foundation (CCF) will appear at the Supreme Court of Canada from November 5-6 to intervene in Alford v Canada (Attorney General), a case that raises foundational questions about the meaning of parliamentary privilege and whether the Executive branch has the power to criminalize speech in Parliament.

Professor Ryan Alford of Lakehead University is challenging section 12 of the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians Act (NSICOP), which allows Members of Parliament with security clearance to be jailed for up to 14 years for disclosing classified information – even during debates in the House of Commons. Professor Alford takes the position that stripping committee members of parliamentary privilege would require a constitutional amendment.

The CCF will argue that Members of Parliament have a constitutional right to speak freely, and that NSICOP violates section 18 of the Constitution by allowing the Executive branch to interfere with Parliament’s exclusive authority to regulate its own speech. This undermines parliamentary independence and free debate.

The controversy around NSICOP drew national attention when Conservative Party of Canada leader Pierre Poilievre refused to obtain security clearance to review a classified report alleging foreign interference by sitting Members of Parliament and Senators, citing concerns that, due to NSICOP, doing so would mean forfeiting his right to speak about the report in Parliament.

“Members of Parliament must be able to speak freely in a healthy democracy,” said Christine Van Geyn, CCF Litigation Director. “This law is already having a chilling effect on debate. By giving the Executive branch power to control what can be said in Parliament, this Act strips Parliament of its constitutional authority and ultimately erodes accountability to the people.”

The CCF is represented in this case by Paul-Erik Veel and Amy Goudge of Lenczner Slaght.

CCF files materials in appeal of decision that found use of Emergencies Act against truckers unlawful

Posted on by
CCF files materials in appeal of decision that found use of Emergencies Act against truckers unlawful In case you missed it, the Canadian Constitution Foundation filed its materials recently in the appeal of the Federal Court decision that declared that the Trudeau government’s unprecedented use of the Emergencies Act in February 2022 was unlawful.
In a decision released on January 23, 2024, Justice Mosley sided with the Canadian Constitution Foundation and other public interest litigants when he found that the Trudeau government’s use of the Emergencies Act was illegal and unconstitutional.
It remains just as important now as it did in 2022 to uphold this victory at every level of court the government wants to fight us in. A strong precedent needs to be upheld for when it is and isn’t appropriate to invoke the Act due to how much power this extraordinary law gives governments to sidestep rights and important democratic checks and balances.
THANK YOU again to all those who donated in support of this next stage of this case. Your support means this case continues with strong backing from Canadians. We raised over $65,000 on top of the $40,000 matching offer provided by a generous CCF donor.
We expect the government to do everything in their power to stop us, and that may include tactics to increase costs and to delay the case, so this amazing support will directly ensure we win again at this higher level of court. Thank you so much.
You can find our filed materials for this appeal here, and read our full press release here.
UPDATE! The Emergencies Act Appeal is heading to court!

CCF Litigation Director Christine Van Geyn also released a new YouTube video covering the upcoming appeal described above

Jordan Peterson Loses Judicial Review in Freedom of Speech Case

Posted on by
CCF reaction to result in Jordan Peterson freedom of expression case

CCF reaction to result in Jordan Peterson freedom of expression case

TORONTO: The Canadian Constitution Foundation (CCF) is disappointed in the result in the judicial review of a case between public intellectual Dr Jordan Peterson and the College of Psychologists of Ontario. The dispute is over professional penalties, in the form of mandatory training, imposed on Dr Peterson by the College. This order for training was a result of public statements Dr Peterson had made on social media. The comments did not relate to the practice of psychology. The complaints were made by members of the public, not by any individuals who Dr Peterson had ever treated as a patient.

The CCF was an intervener in the judicial review, arguing that professionals have private lives and regulators may not discipline for off-duty conduct that lacks a clear nexus to the profession. Where off-duty conduct engages a Charter right, like freedom of expression, regulators have a heightened duty to ensure they have given full effect to the Charter protection.

“We are disappointed in this result, which we think could have a chilling effect on people in other regulated professions, like doctors, lawyers, teachers and accountants,” said CCF Litigation Director Christine Van Geyn. “Professionals should not have to soft pedal their speech for fear that activists will weaponize regulatory bodies so that unpopular speech is penalized, even when there is no connection between that speech and the profession.”

The Divisional Court did not accept Dr Peterson’s argument that his comments were “off duty” and outside his role as a psychologist. Writing for the court, Justice Schabas found that Dr Peterson “cannot speak as a member of a regulated profession without taking responsibility for the risk of harm that flows from him speaking in that trusted capacity.”

“We hope that Dr Peterson will appeal this result, which will have long lasting impacts beyond his case. The right to freedom of expression must be given more weight than the court gave it here, and the mere assertion of risk of harm is not enough. While controversial and inflammatory, there is no suggestion that any of the people Dr Peterson made comments about were harmed in any way, and indeed, they were not the source of the complaints. Complaints were made by members of the public who simply did not like what Dr Peterson said, or worse, how he said it. This is not a sufficient basis for action by the regulator when weighed against Dr Peterson’s constitutional right to freedom of expression,” said Van Geyn.

The CCF is represented in this case by George Avraam, Ahmed Shafey and Juliette Mestre of Baker McKenzie LLP. The CCF is grateful for their hard work and diligence on this case. If Dr Peterson appeals, the CCF will seek leave to intervene.

How to Make Your Submission to the Rouleau Commission Investigating Trudeau’s Invocation of Rights Stealing (stolen/frozen bank, trucks seized, peaceful protest smashed) “Emergencies Act”

Posted on by

I want to give you an important update about the Emergencies Act inquiry and some information about how you can personally contribute to the inquiry and hold the government to account.

The use of the Emergencies Act was illegal, and the Canadian Constitution Foundation is fighting it in court. We are also participating in an independent inquiry – the Rouleau Commission – that is looking into the government’s use of this law.

The Rouleau Commission is now accepting comments from the public – that means YOU can send the inquiry a public comment about your experience and reaction with the 2022 Freedom Convoy and the government’s illegal and unconstitutional use of the Emergencies Act.

Your comment may be quoted in the hearings, or in the Commission’s final report. It is imperative that the Commission hear from members of the public and understand the full impact on citizens of the federal government’s illegal and unconstitutional use of the Emergencies Act.

This is an important way for your voice to matter. There are many untold stories related to the Freedom Convoy. Much of the reporting of the protests was disconnected to the experience of participants and observers who were on the ground at these protests in early 2022. These public comments are now an opportunity for those stories to be told as a part of the Inquiry.

Your comment can be submitted by email to perspectives@poec-cedu.gc.ca.
It can also be submitted by mail to:   Public Order Emergency Commission
c/o Main Floor Security Desk
90 Sparks Street
Ottawa, ON K1A 0A3  

Before you send in a public comment, I want to give you style suggestions, the background facts you need to know, some key messages and questions you may want to consider answering, and of course, the technical details of how and when to send in your submission. I can’t wait to tell you all about it.
I want to start by saying this inquiry is NOT the government. It is an independent and non-partisan commission chaired by a very respected court of appeal judge and staffed by experienced lawyers. This inquiry was not called out of the kindness of the Prime Minister’s heart – it is required by law. I think if it was not required by law, it almost certainly would not be taking place. So my first piece of style advice is to remember that your comments are NOT being sent to the government. They are NOT being sent to the prime minister, or to any politician. It is being sent to a judge.

So don’t use bad language. Don’t use partisan language. It won’t help. In fact, it will only undermine the credibility of your message. I want your submissions to matter. It’s too easy to dismiss a public comment that is full of angry and profane language, or that comes across as a partisan attack.

I get that a lot of you are angry – I’m angry too. But let’s channel our anger into something useful by sending in public comments that use our words to communicate the damage that the government has done by illegally using the Emergencies Act.

Remember that your submission may be referred to or quoted by the Commission either in the report or in the public hearings. Use language you would be proud to have attributed to you, even though no identifying information will be used without your express permission.

My second piece of style advice is to start by addressing your letter “To The Public Order Emergency Commission”.
Then begin your submission with your main message. Your main message could be an answer to a question. I have a list of questions you might consider answering listed in the description below. Or instead of answering a question, your main message could be your experience as a participant in the protests or an observer of the protests.

You should keep your submission between 1 and 2 pages. If your submission is really long, it may not be read as carefully. You should focus your letter on the most important things you want the commission to know.
You can also include pictures, photographs and other supporting documents, if you think that will help.

Submissions can be made anonymously. If you want to submit anonymously, it makes sense to explain why you are making that choice. For example, some professionals who participated in the protests faced consequences from their employers. There was a hack of the information about donors to the freedom convoy, and their information, including names and addresses, posted online. I do understand why someone may want to make an anonymous submission, but it is a good idea to explain why you made that choice so the Commission understands too. If you are submitting anonymously, please note your country of residence. We all remember how some media outlets accused the Freedom Convoy of being “foreign funded” – something that turned out not to be true. So make sure you say where you live to prevent those kinds of false allegations about the people sending in public comments.

Lastly, you may submit by handwritten letter by mailing to the address I’ve linked to in the description below. Just please ensure your handwriting is legible.

That’s my style advice.
But I also have advice to give you on the substance of the submissions.
To make your public comment more impactful, focus on a main message. Your main message could be your experience as a participant in the protests or an observer of the protests.

Or you could answer one, or more of these questions:   Did the Emergencies Act make you afraid to attend other protests in the future? Including protests on topics unrelated to the Freedom Convoy? Were you afraid to donate to any charities unrelated to the Freedom Convoy after the government invoked the Emergencies Act? Were you concerned that your financial information could be shared with the government if you donated to other charities?

Were you personally involved in the Freedom Convoy protests, and if so, what was your experience like? How was your experience impacted by the use of the Emergencies Act? How do you feel about the protests and about the use of the Emergencies Act. If you were not involved in the protests, what were your views as an observer or person who was affected by the protests? What were your views of the police and government response? How did the police and government response make you feel? Are there any changes you would recommend in terms of the Emergencies Act to ensure it is not abused again in the future?

What is your view on whether the strict threshold set out in the Emergencies Act was met? Has the government provided a sufficient explanation about why existing law enforcement tools were insufficient?   It is also important to remember some important facts about the Emergencies Act and its invocation when sending in a public comment.
First, emergency powers have a dark and troubled history in Canada. The Emergencies Act was enacted to replace the War Measures Act, which was abused by previous federal governments. In response to the abuse of the War Measures Act, the Emergencies Act was carefully crafted to set out a demanding set of legally binding conditions that must be satisfied before it can be invoked. Those conditions were not met in this case.

The Emergencies Act is exceptional. It gives the federal cabinet authority to create new criminal offences and police powers, without recourse to Parliament, without advance notice, and without public debate. The law poses the risk of executive overreach which could have profound effects on Canadian democracy. Because the Emergencies Act vests enormous power in the federal cabinet, it should be interpreted strictly.

The Emergencies Act can only be invoked when there are no other legal tools available to deal with an ongoing situation that is urgent, temporary and national in scope. The February 2022 Freedom Convoy protests were cleared using ordinary police powers. In the view of many civil liberties organizations, including the Canadian Constitution Foundation, the invocation of the Emergencies Act was not absolutely necessary, as the Act requires.

After invoking the Emergencies Act, the federal government brought in Economic Measures and Emergency Measures. The Economic Measures enacted under the Emergencies Act required banks to disclose private banking information to police. This amounted to a warrantless and unreasonable search of private banking information. The Emergency Measures prohibited a very broad range of conduct, including generally acceptable and legal protest behaviour, breach of which was punishable by fines and imprisonment.

The federal government has not provided an explanation for its invocation of the Emergencies Act beyond a simple declaratory statement that a public order emergency existed. The federal government is fighting the disclosure of documents that provide a record of why this law was invoked. The federal government is not acting transparently, or explaining why this law was necessary. If the federal government refuses to provide an explanation, it is reasonable to draw the conclusion that no good explanation exists.

The Rouleau Commission hearings begin on September 19, so it is best to send a public comment before that date, although they will be accepted up until October 31.

If you want additional information and style guidance on how to send in a public comment, visit theccf.ca/emergencies-act-inquiry/
Good luck. And I hope you take part in this inquiry.
Yours truly,
Christine Van Geyn

PS – We are fighting this battle against the illegal use of the Emergencies Act as part of the inquiry, but also in court. We’ve hired one of the best lawyers in the country, but that means the fight is expensive. Please consider making a tax-deductible gift to help us pay our legal fees at theccf.ca/donate/
   
Follow us on Social Media
  Canadian Constitution Foundation
6025 – 12 St SE, Suite 215
Calgary, Alberta T2H 2K1