Successful Events in 2023 and 2024 Met With Sudden Opposition in 2025
Burn 24/7 Canada, a small Canadian non-profit dedicated to hosting free, family-friendly Christian worship events in cities across the country, successfully held larger-scale outdoor worship events in the late summers of 2023 and 2024 featuring American singer Sean Feucht as the lead performer, without a single issue.
Encouraged by the positive response, the organization expanded its plans for 2025 with an 11-city tour. But something had changed. People—including political and local leaders—began targeting Mr. Feucht, branding him a “MAGA musician,” and pressuring venues and governments to stop the concerts. In one example, Halifax Liberal MP Shannon Miedema publicly urged the federal government to cancel Burn 24/7 Canada’s booking of the Halifax Citadel because Mr. Feucht was the invited lead singer. As a result, Burn 24/7 Canada’s free, family-friendly worship events began facing a wave of government cancellations across Canada in 2025.
Lawyers funded by the Justice Centre are challenging these actions—beginning with a formal warning to the City of Abbotsford and expanding to a full legal claim filed in Quebec Superior Court after Quebec City abruptly cancelled a scheduled worship event.
The Justice Centre continues to fund legal challenges on behalf of Burn 24/7 Canada as it confronts municipalities that appear to restrict peaceful religious expression under the guise of political pressure, public controversy, or vague “safety” concerns.
Quebec City: Lawsuit Filed After Last-Minute Cancellation
In Quebec City, lawyers have filed a claim in Quebec Superior Court on behalf of Burn 24/7 Canada Worship Ministries after the City cancelled a worship and prayer event two days before it was scheduled to occur.
Burn 24/7 Canada had signed a lease with the City on July 4, 2025, to host the event at ExpoCité and paid the full rental fee of $2,609.93 on July 14. Without warning, the City terminated the lease on July 23, citing the presence of a supposedly “controversial” artist—Sean Feucht—whose views on abortion, traditional marriage, and former U.S. President Donald Trump had been portrayed negatively in some Canadian media.
City Claims “Reputational Risk,” Cites Baseless Contract Clauses
Municipal officials stated publicly that ExpoCité cancelled the contract because an “artist who generates significant controversy has consequences for ExpoCité’s reputation.” They further attempted to justify the cancellation by invoking clauses related to “illegal solicitation” and “use of premises,” claims the Justice Centre argues are baseless and discriminatory.
Legal Remedies Sought
Lawyers for Burn 24/7 Canada are seeking reimbursement of rent, punitive damages, and declarations that the City violated the organization’s fundamental freedoms under both the Charter and Quebec’s Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms.
Constitutional lawyer Olivier Séguin said, “In this era of cancel culture, it’s easy to see why some private citizens might yield to public pressure. But when government officials do the same, it crosses a line. The City’s conduct is inexcusable and must be punished.”
National Pattern of Cancellations
The Quebec City lawsuit comes amid a wave of cancellations by government bodies—including an event in the Halifax area run by Parks Canada, alongside others in Charlottetown and Moncton—each of which revoked permission for Mr. Feucht’s July 2025 events while citing generalized “security” concerns.
Abbotsford, BC: Ongoing Dispute After Denied Permit
Meanwhile, the dispute with the City of Abbotsford, BC, remains unresolved after the municipality refused a permit for Burn 24/7 Canada’s “Let Us Worship: Revive in 25” event scheduled for August 24, 2025, at Mill Lake Park.
Despite months of cooperation and adherence to municipal requirements, organizers were suddenly told that “safety letters” were needed from the police and fire departments. The City then claimed these departments would not provide the letters, citing vague and unspecified safety risks. No details or documentation were provided.
Constitutional lawyer Marty Moore said this is part of a troubling national trend: “The cancellations of these worship events by government entities across Canada has exposed a grotesque lack of government knowledge and appreciation for Canada’s fundamental freedoms, including those of religion, expression and peaceful assembly.”
Constitutional Protections Cited
Lawyers funded by the Justice Centre also reminded the City of Abbotsford of the long-established constitutional protection for religious worship, referencing Chief Justice Brian Dickson’s 1985 articulation of freedom of religion.
Justice Centre President John Carpay stated, “Ultimately, the guarantor of freedom of expression and other Charter freedoms is not the Charter itself, nor freedom-loving judges who interpret it properly, but rather the culture and social fabric of Canadian society. If Canadians cherish the free society in their hearts, and understand their constitutional freedoms in their minds, the free society will endure.”
City Refuses Expedited Appeal
Lawyers continued to press Abbotsford to allow the event to proceed under standard safety protocols. However, the City has refused an expedited appeal, asserting that decision-makers were on “summer break” and staff were “out of the office and unavailable.”
Transparency Concerns Raised
Constitutional lawyer Glenn Blackett raised concerns about transparency: “The City says it had information of protest-related safety risks three weeks ago that necessitated cancellation. To date, nobody—including the police—will provide records or further information about that.” He added, “How is the client supposed to address concerns the City won’t disclose? If the police are aware of a significant safety risk, why won’t they share that information with the organizer? None of this makes sense if the concern is really safety.”
Mr. Moore added, “This case raises serious questions about transparency and procedural fairness. The City is effectively denying organizers any meaningful opportunity to appeal its decision, while withholding the very information needed to resolve its alleged safety concerns.”