Police removal of local residents from council meeting
Lawyers funded by the Justice Centre have sent a legal warning letter to the Municipality of North Huron calling for the immediate repeal of a by-law that bans members of the public from recording municipal council meetings, as well as the reversal of a related ban imposed on two local residents.
The letter follows an incident at a North Huron council meeting on January 12, 2026, when Mr. Hill and Mr. Carther attended a public meeting of North Huron Council. After an exchange concerning the recording prohibition and a subsequent comment that council deemed disruptive, council recessed the meeting and called the Ontario Provincial Police. During the recess, officers removed both men from council chambers, despite neither man being accused of violent or threatening behaviour.
Neither individual was accused of violent or threatening behaviour, yet both were later issued trespass notices.
Lawyers say by-law violates freedom of expression
Lawyers say the council’s by-law prohibiting public recording of council meetings violates section 2(b) of the Charter, which protects freedom of expression and freedom of the press.
Courts have repeatedly confirmed that recording and publishing matters of public interest, including the proceedings of elected bodies, is constitutionally protected activity.
Constitutional lawyer Darren Leung said, “Freedom of the press guarantees citizens the right to record and publish matters of public interest, which is especially significant when dealing with democratic institutions such as elected municipal councils.”
Resident bans and police involvement also challenged
The warning letter further states that the 60-day bans imposed on the two residents are arbitrary and unconstitutional, and criticizes council’s decision to call 911 during the incident, noting that emergency services should not be used in the absence of any reasonable apprehension of danger.
Legal challenge launched against North Huron
Lawyers funded by the Justice Centre argue that the Township cannot continue to enforce trespass notices that were issued under a bylaw it has already acknowledged was improper by repealing it. Following receipt of the Justice Centre’s warning letter, the Township repealed its prohibition on public recording and adopted a new procedure bylaw permitting members of the public to record council meetings, subject to reasonable rules governing the placement and operation of recording equipment.
Mr. Hill and Mr. Carther were removed from the January 12, 2026 council meeting and banned from attending future meetings solely for attempting to record proceedings in a public forum.
Their Notice of Application asks the Court to affirm that citizens cannot be excluded from municipal council meetings for peacefully documenting public proceedings and to declare the six-month trespass notices unconstitutional and of no force or effect.
Constitutional lawyer Darren Leung said, “While we are glad that the Township has heeded our legal warning regarding the prohibition on recording, the trespass notices against Mr. Hill and Mr. Carther have not yet been rescinded, despite the fact that the trespass notices were issued under an unconstitutional bylaw.”
Factum filed
On Monday, July 13, 2026, lawyers funded by the Justice Centre filed the Applicants’ Factum in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice on behalf of North Huron residents Stephen Hill and Bradley Carther in their constitutional challenge concerning Canadians’ right to record municipal council meetings.
The Factum argues that recording public meetings is protected by section 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and that municipalities cannot use trespass notices to exclude citizens from council meetings for engaging in constitutionally protected expression.
Constitutional lawyer Darren Leung said, “While we welcome the fact that the Township rescinded its unconstitutional prohibition on recording, it still maintained the trespass notices against Mr. Hill and Mr. Carther, which is, in itself, a constitutional violation.”
He continued, “We look forward to presenting this case before the Court and are hopeful it will recognize that the applicants did nothing wrong.”
Court to decide on recording matter
On Wednesday, August 19, 2026, lawyers funded by the Justice Centre will appear before the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in Goderich on behalf of North Huron residents Stephen Hill and Bradley Carther.
The Township’s procedure bylaw previously prohibited recordings of council meetings other than the Township’s official recording. On March 3, 2026, it amended that provision to allow public recording, subject to certain restrictions. In its responding factum, the Township argues that the case is therefore moot and that citizens have no right to attend council meetings in person when virtual access is available.
Lawyers funded by the Justice Centre argue that the Township improperly used its trespass powers to exclude Mr. Hill and Mr. Carther from council chambers based on a recording prohibition that violated freedom of expression protected by section 2(b) of the Charter.
Decision reserved
The Court reserved its decision, which is expected at a later date.
