Denying Freedom of Speech at Canadian Universities

Denying Freedom of Speech at Canadian Universities

Below is an excellent article written by lawyer John Carpay, President of the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms, located in Calgary, Alberta.   The article discusses the tragedy that is taking place at Canadian universities, where, shockingly, freedom of speech and thought are prohibited. Instead, the universities insist that only Marxist left-wing concepts are to be heard in their institutions. Freedom of Speech is a right protected by Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and Article 19 of the UN Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and is also included in Section 2 of Canada’s Constitution, the Charter of Rights.   The time has come for the provincial governments that provide billions of dollars to support universities, to withdraw financial support from universities until such time as they permit freedom of speech and thought in their institutions.   Since this issue has such a detrimental effect on our future generations, we are bringing it to your attention.   Please contact the Premier of your province and your Minister of Education/Colleges, Universities (see below for contact information) and request that your province withdraw funding from universities unless they agree to protect freedom of speech and thought.
_________________________
  It’s Time to Defund Universities that Censor Speech on Campus By: John Carpay, B.A., LL.B. President Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms  

It’s high time for Canadians to start demanding that provincial governments stop giving billions of tax dollars to public universities which demonstrate by their actions that they have no love for inquiry, debate, and truth.   The arrest of Frances Widdowson at the University of Victoria for seeking to engage students in debate on campus is the latest example of an aggressive anti-intellectual trend that grows worse on campus every decade.   On Dec. 2, 2025, Widdowson was charged with trespassing after attempting to engage in an open dialogue with students at UVic. She showed up on campus with a sign that read simply “What remains?” She hoped to engage students in discussions about whether they believe that 215 children are buried at the former Kamloops Indian Residential School.   To this day, not one body has been found at the site in Kamloops. Canadian taxpayers have provided more than $12 million for excavations at Kamloops and other former residential school sites in B.C. that could tell us the truth. However, the local Kamloops aboriginal council continues to refuse to conduct an excavation, despite receiving all this money. Yet government, media, and academic narratives persist about the “genocidal” nature of residential schools. Widdowson, a former professor at Mount Royal University, is one of the few academics in Canada who isn’t afraid to challenge dominant but unsupported narratives like this one.  

Initially, the only targets of censorship, harassment, and bullying were campus pro-life groups.  For example, the Simon Fraser Student Society revoked club status from the pro-life club SFU LifeLine after declaring that all clubs must take a pro-choice stance under a new “Reproductive Rights” policy. The University of Alberta condoned the bullying, censorship, and intimidation of one of its own student groups, UAlberta Pro-Life. The university was ultimately rebuked by the Alberta Court of Appeal for imposing a $17,500 “security fee” that no student club could afford. The University of Calgary found pro-life students guilty of non-academic misconduct for having peacefully expressed their unpopular opinions on campus, but was rebuked by the court in Wilson v. University of Calgary.  

Since the 1990s, the cancer of censorship has been tolerated and coddled by university officials across Canada. Predictably, this cancer has spread. It is no longer limited only to pro-life groups.   Today, the vast majority of Canadian universities have a strong commitment to “diversity,” “equity” and “inclusion” in their mission, vision, and values statements. They impose woke ideology on all students and faculty. They have a very limited willingness to uphold free expression, open inquiry, and the pursuit of truth.   The Equity, Diversity and Inclusion Institutional Capacity-Building Grants of the federal government also undermines free speech and the pursuit of truth. In order to qualify for these grants, universities must impose mandatory training for students, faculty, and staff on “anti-oppression” and “unconscious bias” strategies.

However, the biggest funders of public universities are Canada’s provincial governments, not the federal government.   It would take not just a book, but a large encyclopedia set, to document all the cases of Canadian universities and student unions censoring speech on campus in the past 30 years. The following are just a few examples.  

In 2017, McMaster University in Hamilton allowed a loud, angry mob to shout down Jordan Peterson, then a professor at the University of Toronto, and prevent him from speaking. The university’s president has not apologized.   Mount Royal University, in addition to firing Widdowson because of her public disagreement with woke ideology, also cancelled its instructor Mark Hecht, in response to people claiming to be offended by his 2019 Vancouver Sun column that criticized diversity.  

In 2019, Simon Fraser University cowered to extremists by cancelling a panel discussion titled “How Media Bias Shapes the Gender Identity Debate.” The panelists included Meghan Murphy and Jonathan Kay, and moderator Lindsay Shepherd. In violation of the Criminal Code, trans activists threatened to physically disrupt the event by engaging in property destruction and false fire alarm activation. SFU, like so many other universities, practiced cancel culture under the guise of “safety and security.”   Canadian universities ignore the fact that threats to safety and security come uniquely from intolerant thugs who violate the Criminal Code, and not from those who peacefully express their views. Yet universities routinely reward those who threaten criminal actions (e.g. disrupting and obstructing events) and punish the innocent by cancelling events.   The University of British Columbia Free Speech Club booked space to host journalist Andy Ngo on Jan. 29, 2020. Ngo was to speak on the topic of antifa violence. The club paid a room booking deposit in November, but UBC rescinded the event in December with a vague mention of “safety” and “security.” More than five years later, this matter is still before the courts.   In 2020, the University of Alberta fired anthropology professor Kathleen Lowrey, who describes herself as a gender-critical feminist, from her position as associate chair of undergraduate programs, because anonymous complainants said she made the learning environment “unsafe.” Neither Dean of Students André Costopoulos nor the UAlberta department of Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion and Human Resources Services would speak to the question of how many individuals complained about Lowrey and what the complaints alleged.   In 2020, evolutionary ecologist and Dean of Graduate Studies at Laurentian University David Lesbarrès sent out a tweet that included a hashtag considered contentious among the activist class: “#AllLivesMatter.” Lesbarrères was removed from his position as dean by the university’s president, who claimed that his tweet “hurt many people.”   In 2021, the University of Winnipeg kicked a student out of its education program for having attended a peaceful, outdoor, off-campus rally against lockdown restrictions that violated Charter freedoms. The university only reinstated the student after receiving a legal warning letter from a Justice Centre lawyer.   Patrick Provost, professor of microbiology and immunology, was suspended and ultimately fired by Laval Université. An expert in micro-RNA, the small molecules that help regulate genes, Provost criticized the COVID vaccines in December 2021. He argued that the risks of COVID vaccination in children outweighed the benefits because of the potential side-effects from mRNA vaccines. Rather than facilitating debate, the university fired him in 2022.   The University of Lethbridge is currently being sued over its decision in 2023 to cancel Widdowson’s lecture, “How Woke-ism Threatens Academic Freedom.”   The presidents of Canadian universities, along with their boards and senior staff, have made it abundantly clear that they have no intention of restoring free expression on campus. They appeal to “academic freedom” as somehow conferring on them a right to censor unpopular views on campus. They impose woke ideology on students and staff. They want to continue receiving billions of dollars from taxpayers each year, even while refusing to facilitate the pursuit of truth through open inquiry and debate.   Provincial governments can start fixing this problem tomorrow. It’s not complicated. The ministers of advanced education or post-secondary learning in each province can inform university presidents that continued taxpayer funding will be provided only on the condition that universities protect free speech and facilitate the pursuit of truth through open inquiry and debate. Provincial legislation can be modified if necessary. If a university refuses to meet this fair and basic standard, it is free to seek out funding from sources other than government.   Taxpayers and their elected representatives have been far too tolerant of egregious misconduct, for far too long.   John Carpay, B.A., LL.B. has defended campus free speech in courts of law and in the court of public opinion for more than two decades. He is President of the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms (jccf.ca).

Waterloo School Board Challenged for Imposing ‘Land Acknowledgement” At Meetings

Ontario school board facing constitutional challenge over mandated land acknowledgements

Plaintiff father says his concerns began after the council started opening meetings with land acknowledgements with no debate or vote

Author of the article:

By Stewart Lewis

Published Nov 27, 2025

324 Comments

school
The Alberta-based Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms has filed a legal challenge to the Waterloo Region District School Board’s decision to mandate the reading of land acknowledgements at school council meetings. Photo by recep-bg /Photo: Submitted

The Alberta-based Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms has filed a legal challenge over what it alleges was a Waterloo Region District School Board’s decision to mandate the reading of land acknowledgements at school council meetings, while prohibiting debate on the issue.

The application has been brought on behalf of Geoffrey Horsman, a biochemistry professor and member of the Kitchener-Waterloo Collegiate and Vocational School Council as the father of three children attending district schools.

Horsman’s concerns began, says the JCCF, when the council started opening its meetings with land acknowledgements despite the fact that no vote or debate had ever been held on the practice. In the spring of 2025, he sought to have the matter placed on the agenda for discussion. However, the council chair declined and referred him to the school principal.

On May 9, says JCCF, the principal informed Horsman that the board requires land acknowledgements at all school council meetings and that the topic could not be debated.

The judicial review challenges the Board’s conduct on three grounds:

  • mandating land acknowledgements compels Horsman to sit through a statement that contradicts his belief in the inherent dignity and equality of all people;

  • prohibiting any discussion of land acknowledgements at school council meetings suppresses his ability to raise or challenge the issue;

  • the Board has no statutory power under the Ontario Education Act or Regulation 612/00 to dictate school council practices or impose ideological recitations.

The dispute follows a related instance that arose in September, when another parent, Cristina Bairos Fernandes, raised an objection to opening parent involvement committee meetings with a land acknowledgement, reports Juno News.

Article content

The chair of the committee agreed to “note” her objection but Scott Miller, the board’s director of education, intervened stating that: “I think we’ve been pretty clear as a district school board what we believe, our commitment to Truth and Reconciliation, call to action. And that’s across the province.”

The committee ultimately voted to record the objection, but exclude mention of the director’s interference. Horseman was one of a few parent-committee members who requested the minutes include the director’s interference “rather than (leaving it out) as though it never happened.”

It wasn’t the first time a parent faced roadblocks for objecting to land acknowledgements at parent-run meeting, says the JCCF. In April, Hamilton-Wentworth District School Board parent Catherine Kronas raised concerns about imposing political speech in government settings. In response, she was suspended from attending council meetings. However, she was later reinstated following legal intervention from the JCCF.

Constitutional lawyer Hatim Kheir stated that Kronas’ comments “were a reasonable and measured expression of a viewpoint held by many Canadians.”

Further, he said: “The Board’s decision to suspend her from the Council, which she has a right to sit on as an elected parent member, is an act of censorship that offends the right to freedom of expression.”

In both instances, the parents expressed concern that reciting land acknowledgements is a form of political speech and questioned their appropriateness in government institutions. (National Post, November 27, 2025)

The Pro-Free Speech Work of the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms

admin@jccf.caMon, Sep 22, 3:38 PM (3 days ago)
to me

Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms

Your donation equips our legal team to defend freedom in courts of law and in the court of public opinion.  We defend the Charter freedoms of expression, association, religion, conscience, mobility, and peaceful assembly, and democracy under the rule of law.

Justice Centre lawyers continue to defend Matt and Nicole Alexander, who were abruptly fired from their teaching positions for “not celebrating and affirming LGBTQ issues.”  There were no complaints against either teacher about failing to treat a student with respect and kindness.  Their union refused to take their grievances to arbitration.  However, we are pleased to announce that the Ontario Labour Relations Board recently ruled against an attempt by the Elementary Teachers’ Federation of Ontario and the Renfrew County District School Board to have the Alexanders’ case dismissed.  No Canadian should be fired for refusing to affirm and celebrate an ideology that contradicts their moral or religious convictions.

We continue to provide lawyers for BC nurse Amy Hamm, recently found guilty of “unprofessional conduct” by the British Columbia College of Nurses and Midwives because she said publicly that there are only two genders.  Amy’s professional regulatory body also ordered her to pay $93,639.80 in legal costs.  The legal battles continue.

On the east coast, Justice Centre lawyers are in court to challenge Nova Scotia’s irrational ban on walking in the woods, imposed by Premier Tim Houston.  Our lawyers represent Jeff Evely, a veteran of the Canadian Armed Forces.  Conservation officers fined him $28,872.50 for merely walking in the woods.  This anti-human law views people as the problem, rather than targeting higher-risk activities like smoking, campfires and cooking in dry, wooded areas.

We continue to defend peaceful Freedom Convoy protestor Chris Barber against the Crown’s demand that his truck, “Big Red,” be seized and that he spend the next eight years of his life in prison.  To imprison a man who sought and followed legal advice while peacefully protesting harmful Covid vaccine mandates would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

Justice Centre lawyers represent Terry Francois in a Federal Court case highlighting serious concerns about accountability and due process within First Nations governance.  The Indigenous father of five was banished without warning from his home and family on the Nisichawayasihk Cree Nation reserve in Manitoba.  “I was totally shocked. I felt crushed,” said Mr. Francois. “I’ve worked all my life and raised five girls on my own. I didn’t think this could happen.”   

Our lawyers continue to defend peaceful protestor Evan Blackman, who was arrested and charged with mischief and obstruction for his involvement in the 2022 Freedom Convoy.  Now, a court has ordered the RCMP and TD Bank to produce records related to the freezing of his bank accounts.  This ruling marks a significant step in the first Charter challenge to the freezing of personal bank accounts under the Emergencies Act.

The Justice Centre continues to collect petition signatures against Bill C-2, the Strong Borders Act (which I prefer to call the “Strong Surveillance Act”).The Bill would grant the federal government new regulatory powers over electronic service providers and would allow law enforcement to conduct warrantless searches.  The Bill would also outlaw cash transactions of $10,000 or more, which opens the door to eventually outlawing all cash payments and donations.   

I invite you to join the 35,000 Canadians who have signed our petition (www.jccf.ca/petitions) calling upon the Prime Minister of Canada to strike the criminalization of cash, and to table legislation protecting Canadian’s right to use cash of any amount for legal transactions. 

My new book, Corrupted by Fear: How the Charter was betrayed and what Canadians can do about it, is a #1 Bestseller on Amazon, with over 3,500 copies sold since January.  Corrupted by Fear exposes how some judges repeated the media narrative in their Covid court rulings, rather than considering the evidence that was placed before them in court.  The paperback, eBook and audiobook versions are available at Amazon.ca.

The deadline to enter the 2025 Brandon Langhjelm Memorial Essay Contest is fast approaching – October 26, 2025.  This year, we invite Canadians aged 15 to 25 to write on either the value of privacy or on the balance between freedom of religion and state neutrality.  Learn more about this contest at www.jccf.ca/essay-contest.  

The Justice Centre has released a new report, “Post-Covid Canada: The rise in unexplained deaths,” available at www.jccf.ca/reports.  Statistics Canada data shows that more Canadians are dying after the government imposed lockdowns and vaccine mandates.  According to Statistics Canada, the 2022 and 2023 death rate for children was 15% higher than in the years before lockdowns, and deaths among Canadians under the age of 45 are up by more than a quarter. Drug overdose deaths are up by 55%, and alcohol-induced deaths are up 18%.  The additional deaths among children and younger Canadians were not caused by Covid.  Incredibly, there was a 26% increase in Covid deaths after most Canadians had been injected with Covid vaccines.   

Follow the Justice Centre on X @JCCFCanada to receive exclusive updates, interviews and videos.  Justice Centre videos are also posted on our YouTube, Vimeo and Rumble channels.

The Central Bank Digital Currency brochure educates Canadians about the dangers of Central Bank Digital Currency.  If you would like extra copies to give away to friends, neighbours and family, please email info@jccf.ca or call our office at 403-475-3622.

Thank you for your continued support, which allows us to defend the free society in 2025.   

Yours sincerely, 

Signature

John Carpay, B.A., LL.B.

President

Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms

Freezing of Bank Accounts Challenged in Court

Ontario dad demands answers after his bank accounts are frozen in case that could strengthen the Charter rights of all Canadians
Dear friend of freedom,Every day, Canadians rely on access to their bank accounts to pay bills, manage expenses, and support their families.But imagine discovering that your bank accounts had been frozen, with no explanation and no warning.Your online banking access denied. Your ATM cash withdrawal requests denied. Your pre-authorized payments blocked, jeopardizing your vehicle, mortgage, or insurance payments. Evan Blackman experienced this, along with hundreds of other Canadians.
Evan Blackman with his son Damian (Photo courtesy of Evan Blackman)
Police arrested Evan in downtown Ottawa on February 18, 2022, during the violent suppression of the peaceful Freedom Convoy protest. Though police released him that same day, he later discovered that his Toronto-Dominion Bank accounts had been frozen. “The initial impact was drastic, being five hours away from home,” he explained. “It was an absolute shock to find out my bank accounts were frozen. As a self-employed worker, it not only affected my family, but my employees as well.”
Support Evan’s defence today
 
A legal journey begins for Evan and his family
 
Four days after the federal government invoked the Emergencies Act against the peaceful protesters resisting Covid vaccine mandates and lockdowns, police arrested Evan and charged him with mischief and obstruction. The Crown’s prosecution rested on a 14-minute drone video and the testimony of a single police officer. The video footage showed Evan attempting to de-escalate tensions between police and protestors. At one point, he was even seen holding others back and raising his hand to prevent conflict. The footage showed Evan kneeling in front of officers, hat in hand, singing O Canada.At his trial in October 2023, the judge dismissed all charges against Evan. The Crown failed to produce persuasive evidence that Evan had done anything criminal. The judge found the police officer’s testimony unreliable and even described Evan as a “peacemaker.”For a brief moment, it felt like Evan’s life could finally return to normal.
Evan Blackman with his son Damian (Photo courtesy of Evan Blackman)
Regrettably, the Ottawa Crown Attorney’s Office appealed the decision, claiming that the judge had made several legal errors. Lawyers provided by the Justice Centre, however, have turned the tables. In the retrial of this case, Evan’s legal team will argue that the freezing of his bank accounts violated his constitutional rights and will seek the dismissal of his case as a remedy if he is convicted.On July 4, 2025, a judge of the Ontario Court of Justice ordered the RCMP and TD Bank to produce key records related to how and why Evan’s accounts were frozen.  Evan thanked the Justice Centre after the decision was made public, remarking, “I’m delighted that we will finally get records that may reveal why my bank accounts were frozen.” Evan’s retrial is scheduled to begin on Thursday, August 14, 2025. By supporting the Justice Centre with a donation, you’ll not only be supporting Evan’s case. You’ll be one step closer to protecting your own bank accounts from interference by Canadian governments.
I want to support Evan and stop governments from touching my bank accounts in the future
 
This is the first criminal trial in Canadian history to involve a Charter challenge against the use of emergency powers to freeze personal bank accounts. Evan’s experience remains a stark reminder of how quickly core freedoms can be threatened when governments violate Canadians’ rights in the name of public safety and national security.If you have not previously donated to the Justice Centre, please consider doing so today. You can join other freedom-loving Canadians who make it possible for us to defend your freedoms in courts of law and in the court of public opinion. Please consider becoming a monthly donor so that the Justice Centre can continue to defend your rights and freedoms throughout 2025.  Yours sincerely,
John Carpay, B.A., LL.B.

Oppose Bill C-2 — Criminalizing Some CashTransactions

CALGARY, AB: The Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms has launched a petition calling upon the Prime Minister of Canada to strike the criminalization of cash payments of $10,000 or more from Bill C-2 and to introduce legislation protecting the right of Canadians to use cash of any amount for legal transactions.

Public Safety Minister Gary Anandasangaree introduced Bill C-2, or the Strong Borders Act, in the House of Commons on June 3, 2025. According to a Government of Canada statement, Bill C-2 will equip law enforcement with tools to secure borders and to combat crime, the drug trade, and money laundering.

Buried deep within the Bill, however, are provisions that would make it a criminal offence for businesses, professionals, and charities to accept cash payments of $10,000 or more in a single transaction or in a series of related transactions. Bill C-2 at page 59 

Justice Centre President John Carpay warns that the criminalization of cash transactions threatens the privacy, freedom of expression, and autonomy of all Canadians. When cash transactions are criminalized, governments, banks, and law enforcement can track and interfere with legitimate purchases and donations.

“We must not criminalize everyday Canadians for using physical currency. Once $10,000 is criminalized, it will be all too easy for future governments to lower the threshold to $5,000, then $1,000, and eventually nothing.”

Bill C-2 is just one point in a concerning anti-cash trend in Canada.

Quebec’s controversial Bill 54, passed into law in March 2024, allows police to assume that any person carrying $2,000 or more in cash is connected to criminal activity. Officers can seize the cash, and citizens must prove their innocence to get the cash back.

“Restricting the use of cash is a dangerous step towards tyranny,” continued Mr. Carpay. “Cash protects citizens from surveillance by government and banks, credit card companies, and other corporations. In a free society, violating the right of law-abiding citizens to use cash is not the answer to money laundering or the drug trade.” 

Signers of the petition call upon the Prime Minister of Canada to strike the criminalization of cash payments from Bill C-2.

Signers of the petition also call upon the Prime Minister of Canada to introduce legislation that protects Canadians’ right to use cash of any amount for legal transactions.

The petition is now live and open for signatures here.

Ancaster Parent Suspended from Hamilton School Council for Objecting to Cringing Land Acknowledgement

Ancaster Parent Suspended from Hamilton School Council for Objecting to Cringing Land Acknowledgement

Legal warning sent to Ontario school board for suspending elected school council member

HAMILTON, ON: The Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms announces that a legal warning letter has been sent to the Hamilton-Wentworth District School Board after it suspended a parent from her role on the School Council for respectfully objecting to land acknowledgements.

Catherine Kronas, a concerned parent with a child enrolled at Ancaster High Secondary School, was re-elected to serve on School Council in October 2024.

During a Council meeting on April 9, 2025, Ms. Kronas asked that her respectful objection to land acknowledgements be noted in the minutes. No disruption occurred; her comments were limited to requesting that her dissenting viewpoint be recorded.

On May 22, 2025, however, the School Board informed Ms. Kronas that her involvement on the Council was being “paused” based on allegations that she had caused harm and had violated a Code of Conduct Policy. She has not been permitted to attend the next scheduled meeting.

Ms. Kronas was unsettled by the Board’s decision, saying, “I was taken aback by the Board’s decision to suspend me from the School Council after delivering a respectful objection, especially given assurances made at a previous council meeting and outlined in the Council bylaws that open dialogue and diverse perspectives are welcomed.”

“By barring me from the next meeting, the Council sends a troubling message to all parents: that even respectful disagreement may be met not with dialogue, but with disciplinary action. I am grateful to the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms for assisting me in this matter,” she remarked.

Constitutional lawyer Hatim Kheir said Ms. Kronas’ comments “were a reasonable and measured expression of a viewpoint held by many Canadians.”

“The Board’s decision to suspend her from the Council, which she has a right to sit on as an elected parent member, is an act of censorship that offends the right to freedom of expression,” he explained.

Mr. Kheir is calling for Ms. Kronas to be immediately reinstated to the Council and to be allowed to fulfill her elected role without further retaliation for expressing her views

This One  Simply Will Not Survive A Constitutional Challenge

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.”

By defending Chris Barber, we are defending the Charter freedoms of all Canadians https://cafe.nfshost.com/?p=9997
By defending Chris Barber, we are defending the Charter freedoms of all Canadians
By defending Chris Barber, we are defending the Charter freedoms of all Canadians

Thanks to the generosity of donors, the Justice Centre has been able to provide Chris Barber and other Canadians with criminal defence counsel.
 
(Photo credit: Monick Grenier, clickmonick.com)

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

Small Victory from COVID Insanity: Charges Against Maxime Bernier for Niagara Falls Protest Withdrawn

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.”

Sign the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms Online Petition Opposing Trudeau’s Stalinist “Online Harms Act”

Stop the Online Harms Act

This Act threatens freedom of expression in Canada.

Canadians’ online expression should not be censored unless it violates the Criminal Code.

No Canadian should face an anonymous human rights complaint for what they have said.

No Canadian should be hauled before a court or punished merely because somebody “fears” they will say something hateful.

No Canadian should face life imprisonment for their expression.

We, the undersigned, call upon Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada Arif Virani, and all Parliamentarians, to stop the Online Harms Act.

Please Enter Your Information

  • Your Name(Required) First Last
  • Email(Required)
  • Postal Code(Required)
    • Join 60,000 Canadians receiving updates from the Justice Centre