Lawyers seek judicial review of flyers
Lawyers funded by the Justice Centre filed two Applications for Judicial Review in the New Brunswick Court of King’s Bench on behalf of Campaign Life Coalition after the New Brunswick Human Rights Commission referred complaints about two political flyers to a Board of Inquiry.
The applications asked the Court to quash the Commission’s decisions, arguing that the referrals unjustifiably infringed Campaign Life Coalition’s freedom of expression protected by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. One application concerned a flyer supporting parental notification and consent under New Brunswick’s former Policy 713. The second concerned a flyer opposing the teaching of transgender-related topics in schools.
The flyers were distributed by Campaign Life Coalition, a national, non-profit organization dedicated to pro-life and pro-family advocacy.
Human Rights Commission referred both complaints for a hearing
The Commission’s role was to determine whether there was an arguable case of discrimination that warranted a hearing before a Board of Inquiry.
On April 23, 2026, the Commission referred both complaints for a hearing.
The judicial review applications argued that the Commission fundamentally misinterpreted the legal test governing discriminatory expression established by the Supreme Court of Canada. They also alleged that the Commission acted unfairly by departing from its stated procedures by allowing complainants to amend their complaints after Campaign Life Coalition had already filed its responses and submissions.
The applications further argued that the flyers constituted political expression on matters of public policy during an election period, making them among the most strongly protected forms of expression under Canadian constitutional law. They also argued that human rights legislation does not prohibit political advocacy or expression that merely causes offence or hurt feelings.
Constitutional lawyer Hatim Kheir said, “Campaign Life Coalition was engaged in political speech, which is the most protected form of expression in our constitutional system. We are asking the Court to provide guidance to the Human Rights Commission to ensure that free expression is properly protected.”
The next step in the proceedings is for the respondents to file any evidence in response to the applications.
