Decision expected soon in case that challenges Alberta’s “safe spaces” law

Share this:

Dr. Frances Widdowson (Courtesy of Dr. Widdowson)
Dr. Frances Widdowson (Courtesy of Dr. Widdowson)

Decision expected soon in case that challenges Alberta’s “safe spaces” law

Dr. Frances Widdowson (Courtesy of Dr. Widdowson)
Dr. Frances Widdowson (Courtesy of Dr. Widdowson)

Share this:

CALGARY, AB: The Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms announces that the Alberta Court of Appeal will soon release its decision in a case challenging whether speaking events can be censored on the basis of potential “psychological harm” to an audience, infringing Charter-protected freedoms of expression (section 2(b) and peaceful assembly (section 2(c).

This case stems from the University of Lethbridge’s January 30, 2023, decision to cancel a speaking event featuring Dr. Frances Widdowson, who has frequently challenged established narratives on Indigenous matters.

In written argument filed in 2024 the University claimed it cancelled the event, in part, because it had obligations under Alberta’s Occupational Health and Safety Act to ensure a workplace free of “harassment” and free of hazards to “psychological and social wellbeing.”

Lawyers argue that these provisions (which might be described as a “safe spaces” law) compel employers to censor lawful expression under threat of fines or imprisonment.

Constitutional lawyer Glenn Blackett said, “Safe spaces provisions are a serious threat to Charter freedoms. Employers who don’t censor ‘unsafe’ speech are liable to be fined or even jailed. This isn’t just the government censoring speech, it is the government requiring citizens to censor one another.”

Given the University’s defence, lawyers asked the Court of King’s Bench of Alberta to allow an amendment to the lawsuit to challenge the constitutionality of the “safe spaces” laws. However, the Court denied the request. According to the Court’s apparent reasoning because the safe spaces law is worded vaguely and generally, it is immune from constitutional challenge.

Mr. Blackett says, “I think the Court got things backwards. If legislation infringes Charter rights in a vague or general way, infringements become impossible to justify – they don’t become Constitution-proof.”

Widdowson and co-litigant Jonah Pickle appealed the ruling to the Alberta Court of Appeal, which heard argument on Monday. A decision from the Court of Appeal is expected soon.

Share this:

Surveillance (Courtesy of Alexander)

Epoch Times: New Bill Giving Federal Agencies Access to Canadians’ Data Raises Major Privacy Concerns

Like the sugary coating of a bitter pill, nice-sounding words often cover bad ideas that people are encouraged to swallow.
Rural Municipality of Springfield, Manitoba (Courtesy of Daniel Page)

Rural Municipality of Springfield defends ban on recording public meetings as case heads to court

WINNIPEG, MB: The Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms announces that the Rural Municipality of Springfield (Municipality) has filed its...
Censorship (Courtesy of Paweł Michałowski)

New Westminster Times: Free Speech in Peril: Canada’s Censorship Industrial Complex

Over the past three years, Parliament has seen Bills introduced that would strip supposedly “hateful” and “harmful” content (as defined...

Explore Related News

Rural Municipality of Springfield, Manitoba (Courtesy of Daniel Page)
Read More
Geoffrey Horsman (Courtesy of Geoffrey Horsman
Read More
Justice Centre report
Read More
Rural Municipality of Springfield, Manitoba (Courtesy of Daniel Page)
Geoffrey Horsman (Courtesy of Geoffrey Horsman
Justice Centre report
Minister of Public Safety Gary Anandasangaree announces the introduction of Bill C-22 on March 12, 2026 (Photo credit: The Canadian Press/Spencer Colby)