Paul Tuns:
The Association for Reformed Political Action (ARPA) Canada is challenging the constitutionality of a London, Ont., bylaw that is designed to restrict pro-life speech, while the Ontario Court of Appeal has agreed to hear the Christian Heritage Party’s challenge to the city of Hamilton’s refusal to accept a bus advertisement that questioned transgender ideology.
The Ontario Court of Appeal has agreed to hear an appeal from the Christian Heritage Party of Canada (CHP) in a case against the City of Hamilton for refusing to accept a bus advertisement from the party in July 2023.
The advertisement, intended for a bus shelter, depicted a smiling woman above the words “Woman: An Adult Female.”
In its rejection letter, the city acknowledged CHP’s Charter right to free speech, but said the message supported “a traditional and biologically determined definition of gender in line with conservative values” as grounds for concern. It also stated that upon consulting with local LGBQT groups, they determined that some transgender-identifying individuals might feel unsafe seeing the ad.
Jim Enos, CEO of the CHP Hamilton Mountain electoral district association, said. “Their reasoning at the time was that it went against the advertising codes, but the advertising codes don’t apply to federal political parties, and they know that.”
Enos welcomed the decision to hear the CHP’s appeal. “We are very confident in the case, and the fact that (the court) is even willing to listen to the appeal says there must be something wrong,” he said. “While we can’t say what the outcome will be, doing nothing usually gets you nothing. We don’t want to lose by default. I would rather go down fighting than by forfeit.”
In 2024, the Ontario Divisional Court of the Superior Court of Justice, in a 3-0 vote, denied CHP’s contention that the rejection of the ad violated the party’s right to express its political beliefs. It also rejected the CHP’s argument that the rejection was administratively unfair.
The CHP is supported by the Acacia Group, an Ottawa-based law firm. Lawyer Lia Milousis said the Appeal Court’s decision to hear the appeal is a “first step to restoring Charter-guaranteed freedom of speech for the CHP.” She said, “It’s not for a municipal government to dictate what can and cannot be part of democratic dialogue or what people can and cannot be exposed to in terms of free expression.”
Meanwhile, on June 11, ARPA announced it had “initiated litigation against the City of London, Ontario, in Divisional Court, challenging the constitutionality and legality of a city bylaw that is designed to restrict pro-life speech.”
The 2022 “By-law to regulate the Delivery of Graphic Images in the City of London,” restricts its definition of “graphic images” only to any image of a preborn child, including not just abortion victim photography but ultrasound photos of healthy babies in the womb.
The bylaw forbids delivering any flyer with an image of a fetus to a private residence unless the flyer is placed in an opaque, sealed envelope with the warning that it “contains a Graphic Image that may be offensive or disturbing to some people.”
ARPA said, “The bylaw does not apply to any other kind of images, graphic or otherwise” and therefore the bylaw’s name is misleading.
ARPA’s Anna Nienhuis said the bylaw threatens its work of promoting the pro-life message through the use of ultrasound photos “in its campaign materials when advocating for modest pro-life laws that most Canadians would support, such as restrictions on sex-selective abortion,” by threatening the organization and its volunteers “with significant financial penalties simply for sharing the pro-life message with an ultrasound photo.”
ARPA’s legal counsel, John Sikkema, said “such compelled expression” as the mandated warning on the outside of the envelope, “is a well-recognized violation of the Charter right to freedom of expression.” He also argues that the municipality does not have the constitutional authority to regulate the distribution of literature based on specific content, subject matter, or point of view.
ARPA argues that the “bylaw’s true nature and purpose is to suppress pro-life content.”
The organization is asking the Divisional Court in London to strike down the bylaw as unconstitutional, as a violation of the Charter rights to freedom of conscience and religion and freedom of expression, and as outside the authority of a municipal government.
ARPA challenged a similar bylaw in the City of St. Catharines and in response the city repealed it in August 2024.
