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)
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.
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.”
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.
This isthe 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,
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.
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
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.
