VANCOUVER, BC: The Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms announces that the British Columbia Court of Appeal has ruled that judges’ orders, which set out exactly what a court has decided and what the parties may appeal, must be drafted clearly and precisely. Vagueness, the court explained, threatens to shield decisions, including major constitutional decisions, from appellate review.
The procedural ruling helps prevent lower court decisions from being effectively “appeal proofed” through imprecise or incomplete drafting of court orders.
The Court rejected the idea that Registrars and judges are confined to a purely mechanical role when settling the wording of court orders, confirming that clarity and accuracy may require judgment rather than simple repetition. In this case, that duty means the Court of Appeal will review an important constitutional determination by the lower court: that it was hopeless to claim the Charter applies to universities.
The underlying case stems from a 2019 incident in which the University of British Columbia (UBC) cancelled a Free Speech Club event featuring journalist Andy Ngo at its Robson Square campus, citing concerns about emotional and psychological safety. The cancellation occurred after the event had been approved and a contract signed, and without providing the organizers an opportunity to address the university’s concerns.
Today’s decision does not determine whether UBC breached Charter rights when it cancelled the event without notice or an opportunity for appeal. This aspect of the case will be heard at a later date.
Constitutional lawyer Glenn Blackett said, “This is a good day for the rule of law in BC. The Court of Appeal has confirmed that, like laws, court orders should be clear enough that we know how to comply with them.”
“Here, clarity is essential to ensure the lower court’s conclusion — that it is hopeless to claim the Charter applies to universities — remains open to meaningful appellate review,” he added.
