UBC cancelled a student-organized event on Antifa violence
In 2019, members of the Free Speech Club at the University of British Columbia (UBC) organized a public event titled Understanding Antifa Violence at UBC’s Robson Square campus. The event was to feature journalist Andy Ngo, who had himself been violently attacked by Antifa members during a protest in Portland, Oregon, earlier that year.
UBC approved the event and signed a contract with the student organizers. One month later, however, the university cancelled the event, citing concerns about the emotional and psychological safety of the campus community and the risk of violence. The Free Speech Club was not given an opportunity to address those concerns before UBC cancelled the event.
The cancellation raised broader constitutional questions
Lawyers funded by the Justice Centre challenged UBC’s decision, arguing that the university had unjustifiably restricted freedom of expression and failed to uphold its own commitment to academic freedom.
As the case progressed, it came to focus on a broader constitutional issue: whether publicly funded universities must comply with the Charter when regulating student expression.
The Supreme Court of Canada has held that the Charter applies to government and to private entities carrying out government programs. The central issue in this case became whether British Columbia’s publicly funded universities exercise governmental authority when providing post-secondary education and regulating campus activities.
A lower court dismissed the students’ constitutional claims
On June 4, 2024, the Supreme Court of British Columbia ruled that provincial universities are not government entities and, when delivering post-secondary education, are not carrying out a government program. As a result, the Court dismissed the students’ Charter claims before they proceeded to a full hearing.
Lawyers funded by the Justice Centre appealed that decision, arguing that modern universities operate within an extensive system of provincial legislation, regulation, funding, and government oversight. They argued that publicly funded universities should not be exempt from constitutional scrutiny when restricting freedom of expression.
Lawyers also challenged procedural rulings that they argued could have prevented meaningful appellate review of the constitutional issues.
Court of Appeal restored the students’ Charter claims
On June 10, 2026, the British Columbia Court of Appeal ruled that the students’ constitutional claims against UBC should not have been dismissed before the evidence had been fully considered.
The Court restored the Charter claims against UBC while upholding the dismissal of the claims against the Province of British Columbia. The Court did not decide whether UBC violated the Charter, nor did it determine whether universities are generally subject to the Charter. Instead, it concluded that these constitutional questions deserve to be heard on their merits.
Constitutional lawyer Glenn Blackett stated, “Today’s decision is an important victory on the road to establishing constitutional protections on Canadian university campuses. The Court relied on UBC’s concession that these constitutional questions deserve to be heard fully rather than dismissed before the evidence is tested.”
Important constitutional questions remain
The case will now proceed against UBC to determine whether publicly funded universities are required to respect the Charter when restricting student expression.
Earlier in the appeal, constitutional lawyer Glenn Blackett explained why those questions matter: “It’s troubling that this massive government program, of such importance to our constitutional order, should be left to largely operate in a constitutional black hole. Wherever government is present, so too should our constitutional freedoms – including the right to speak freely and search for truth.”
He added: “Governments are now heavily involved. The Charter says it applies to government activity. The question in this appeal becomes: are the courts listening?”
The matter remains before the courts.
