Active Cases

 

 

Click here to see our concluded cases

Click here to see our out-of-court victories

Index

Youth Protecting Youth v. University of Victoria

CUPE 411 v. Barry Neufeld

Parents, Independent and Religious Schools v. Alberta Minister of Education

AMB at UBC v UBC Vancouver AMS Student Society

PARLA v. City of Prince Albert

C.D. and N.D v. Alberta Child and Family Services

uOttawa Students for Life v. Student Federation of the University of Ottawa

Students for Life v. Brandon University Student Union

Judicial Committee of the Highwood Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses & Highwood Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses v. Randy Wall

Nicholas Troller v. Manitoba Public Insurance

Cornerstone Christian Academy v. Battle River School Division

Lorne Grabher v. Nova Scotia Registrar of Motor Vehicles

Independent Baptist Academies v. Minister of Education

Christian Medical and Dental Society of Canada v. College of Physicians

Kisilowsky v. Manitoba

Servatius v. School District 70

UAlberta Pro-Life v. University of Alberta

Ryerson Men’s Issues Awareness Society v. Ryerson Students’ Union

Speak for the Weak v. Student Association at Durham College and University of Ontario Institute of Technology

Students for Life v. University of Toronto Mississauga Students’ Union

Youth Protecting Youth v. University of Victoria

The Justice Centre has written a letter to the University of Victoria (UVic) requesting that UVic adhere to its policies in upholding the rule of law on campus and disciplining students that attempt to censor opinions they disagree with through vandalism.

Youth Protecting Youth (YPY), a registered student club is “a group of undergraduate students from the University of Victoria who share a common love and respect for all human life, without regard for gender, race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, level of development, or physical capabilities.”

On the morning of November 16, 2017, YPY members erected a display in an area of the UVic campus known as the “Quad”, consisting of 10,000 small blue and pink flags planted into the ground. The flags represent the approximately 100,000 abortions that occur in Canada annually. The purpose of this and other similar flag displays are to raise awareness of the fact that Canada has no law regulating abortion. YPY had emailed Campus Security to notify them of the event on November 15.

At about noon, UVic students began to gather to protest the display. The protest became larger as time went on, increasing in number and intensity. At approximately 1:30 pm, the crowd of protesting students grew to approximately 30 individuals. Some of the protesting students became verbally aggressive and told YPY members that they would remove the flags themselves if YPY refused to do so. Concerned about the protesting students’ threats, YPY called Campus Security. Many protesting students then began pulling up the flags and putting them in piles.

As the protesting students began to destroy the flag display, two Campus Security officers arrived, but declined to take any action. The officers simply watched as the protesting students dismantled YPY members’ flag display. The officers explained to YPY members that they must remain “neutral” and that they could not take any action to protect the flag display because it could be interpreted as Campus Security taking a position in support of YPY. The officers further explained that intervention could “escalate” the situation.

Unopposed, the protesting students completely destroyed YPY’s  flag display.

The Justice Centre’s letter explains that, Campus Security’s claim that if it acted to protect the flag display from student vandalism, it would not be viewed as “neutral” represents a gross misunderstanding of the legal duties of Campus Security to protect the property of students and to respond to violations of UVic’s policies. Campus Security’s job is to uphold the rule of law on campus—which includes protecting student expression—not stand idly by while a mob of bullies vandalize an approved student display.

As the Justice Centre further stated in its letter, freedom of expression is not merely an aspiration or ideal; it is the lifeblood of liberal democracy and the cornerstone of higher education. There should be no greater celebration of, and protection for, freedom of expression, including the expression of minority viewpoints, than at institutions of higher learning, such as UVic. Public educational institutions ought to be a locus of peaceful, vigorous debate where diversity of thought is cultivated, not regressive enclaves of censorship.

YPY has been approved to erect the same flag display on February 22, 2018. In its letter, the Justice Centre requests that, if students threaten to vandalize or disrupt the event on February 22, UVic adhere to its policies and procedures, including protecting free expression on campus and disciplining students that engage in censorship through vandalism.

CUPE 411 v Barry Neufeld

The Justice Centre is representing Chilliwack School District trustee Barry Neufeld as he defends himself against a human rights complaint by a union of local School District staff.  Mr. Neufeld has publicly criticized the Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity (SOGI 1-2-3) curriculum supplements that BC teachers are encouraged to use. SOGI 1-2-3 materials promote, among other things, the belief that gender is fluid, that there are more than two genders, and that gender is not determined by biological sex.

The Legislative Assembly of British Columbia in 2016 amended the BC Human Rights Code to include protection for “gender expression” and “gender identity”. Subsequently, the then-Liberal education minister worked with the Vancouver-based ARC Foundation to develop new “anti-bullying” policies that are “inclusive” of LGBT students.

SOGI 1-2-3 is a series of policy and procedure templates, curriculum supplements, and compilations of LGBT resources developed by the ARC Foundation. While SOGI 1-2-3 is non-mandatory, BC teachers are encouraged by the BC Teachers Federation to use the SOGI 1-2-3 curriculum supplements in the classroom. SOGI 1-2-3 materials propagate a sexual and gender ideology that many consider harmful to children, based on scientific objections.

Barry Neufeld has been a trustee with the Chilliwack School District from 1992-2008 and also since 2011.  He began publicly criticizing SOGI 1-2-3 in the fall of 2017. At that time, he posted to his Facebook page some of his critiques, which included arguments that gender ideology is scientifically false, harmful to children, and not adding any value to anti-bullying efforts.

Last week, Mr. Neufeld became aware of a human rights complaint against him and the Chilliwack School District. The complaint was made by the Canadian Union of Public Employees Local 411 (CUPE 411), which represents approximately 800 support staff employed by the School District. CUPE 411 claims that the School District has violated section 13(1)(b) of the BC Human Rights Code by not “censuring” or removing Mr. Neufeld as a trustee. CUPE 411 further claims that the School District violated section 13(1)(b) of the Code by failing to take any action against Mr. Neufeld, and that Mr. Neufeld’s statements have created an “unsafe” and “discriminatory” working environment for employees.

The Chilliwack School District board voted on January 18, 2018 to urge Mr. Neufeld to resign following the complaint. British Columbia’s Education Minister Rob Fleming has also called on Mr. Neufeld to resign, on January 19.

In a written statement on January 19, Mr. Neufeld explained:

“I am interested and invested in all students receiving an excellent education regardless of their sexual orientation, gender identity, race, religion or other group identity. I support a safe environment for all students in our public education system, and I support a diverse and pluralistic education system, which includes children who come from homes with traditional family values or faith-based beliefs regarding marriage, sexuality, and gender. I have simply taken issue with one facet of the SOGI 1-2-3 learning resources: the teaching of the theory, as if it was fact, that gender is fluid, that there are more than two genders, and that gender is not based in biology.”

Parents, Independent and Religious Schools v. Alberta Minister of Education

The Justice Centre has filed a court application on behalf of a coalition of parents and independent schools, challenging the constitutionality of School Act provisions added by Bill 24, ‘An Act to Support Gay-Straight Alliances’.

This court application asks the court to strike down provisions of Bill 24 on the basis that they violate the rights of parents and schools protected by section 2(a), 2(b), 2(d) and 7 rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (the “Charter”) and the Alberta Bill of Rights.  The court application also seeks an injunction staying the operation of the challenged provisions until the Court rules on their constitutionality.

Primary among the provisions challenged is the requirement that prohibits principals and teachers from notifying parents about student organizations or “activities”, other than the establishment of the organization or the holding of the activity.

The applicants include 26 faith-based schools in Alberta, including Jewish, Christian, and Sikh schools. Bill 24 threatens faith-based schools by attacking the freedom of these schools to create safe and welcoming learning environments while also respecting their unique religious characters, and by preventing schools from being open and transparent with parents.

The applicants also include more than ten individual parents who are concerned about Bill 24’s provisions that prevent parental knowledge about their children in GSA-related activities. Creating no-go zones for parental awareness jeopardizes the safety of Alberta’s children, especially the most vulnerable, and undermines parents’ ability to support and protect their own children.

Bill 24 was passed by the Alberta Legislature in November of 2017.  Bill 24 amends the School Act to make it illegal for the school principal to notify parents about their child’s involvement in student organizations, including Gay-Straight Alliances (GSAs), or “activities” established under section 16.1 of the School Act.

Prior to the passage of Bill 24, principals and teachers had discretion to withhold information from parents on a case-by-case basis.  In rare and unusual cases where there was a risk that providing parents with information would result in a risk of abuse or other harm to a student, schools had the legal authority to withhold information from parents.  Bill 24 removes this discretion from teachers and principals, and replaces it with a blanket prohibition that prevents informing all parents, without exception, about their children’s involvement in GSAs and GSA-related activities.

Bill 24 further requires principals to set up a GSA or facilitate a GSA-related activity “immediately” (at the request of one student) without consulting the school board or parents, and without considering whether the GSA and GSA-related activities are compatible with the school’s nature, character and values.  Parents with concerns about the sexual or ideological content of what is presented in GSA meetings or at GSA-related activities can no longer protect their children from this content, due to the secrecy provisions of Bill 24.

Bill 24 makes no distinction between a five-year-old in Kindergarten who is experiencing gender identity confusion, and a seventeen-year-old in Grade 12 who does not wish to discuss sexuality with his parents.  In both cases, teachers are legally barred from providing any information to parents about GSAs or GSA-related activities.  The Alberta government’s GSA Network website welcomes queries from children, and asks whether they are in elementary school or high school.

The Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that government may not interfere with parental rights to make decisions for their children, unless the government first proves that the parents’ decisions are harmful to the child, or that the child is a mature minor and has made a fully informed decision contrary to parental views.  Government may only interfere on a case-by-case basis, and government must bear the onus of proving or justifying its interference in a court of law, upon notice to the parents, who can dispute the government’s claims.

Bill 24’s infringement of parental rights is not justified by a blanket ban on withholding information from all parents, including the 99% of parents who love and support their children unconditionally, and know their children better than anyone else.  Requiring school principals and teachers, by law, to withhold information from all parents without exception is contrary to the Constitution, contrary to Canada’s legal obligations under international law, contrary to the Alberta Bill of Rights, and contrary to other Alberta legislation such as the Family Law Act.

Section 7 of the Charter only permits interference with a parent’s role after due process, on a case-by-case basis, in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.  Section 2 of the Charter protects a parent’s right to educate based on parents’ own conscience and religious beliefs.  The Charter also protects the right of religious educators not to be compelled to express thoughts and beliefs against their will.

The prohibition on parental notification concerning a GSA or GSA-related activity violates the fundamental right of parents to be informed concerning their children’s education.  Further, there is no real benefit to be realized from the prohibition, since the few children at risk from their parents are already protected by child protection legislation.

Bill 24 evidences the government’s intention to control parents and religious schools and infringe their constitutional rights.   In so doing, the government undermines or effectively negates the exercise of parental rights in education, through the choices of parents to opt out of the public schools and enrol their children in schools consistent with their beliefs, religious and conscientious.  Rather than respecting parents’ choices, Bill 24 instead compels independent schools to adopt policy positions in support of the government’s preferred ideology, evidenced in the materials it supports and recommends for use in GSAs.  This requirement violates parents’ and private schools’ fundamental freedoms of conscience and religion, thought, belief, opinion and expression, and association, guaranteed under section 2 of the Charter.

Bill 24 is therefore unconstitutional, as both its purpose and effect is to deny the rights of parents under section 7 and section 2 of the Charter, and to do so without the requisite justification.

A summary of the Justice Centre’s legal analysis on Bill 24 can be found here.

AMB at UBC v. UBC Vancouver AMS Student Society

The Justice Centre has sent a legal warning letter to the University of British Columbia Alma Mater Society (AMS) demanding that it reverse its decision to deny club recognition to the student group Advocacy for Men and Boys (AMB) after rejecting the group’s application on three separate occasions.

AMB’s mandate seeks to “build a movement centered on raising awareness of issues affecting Men and Boys through public education through positive, non-violent activism for a healthier society.” AMB seeks to engage with students about issues such as men’s health, fathers and family issues, suicide, violence, safety, workplace issues, misandry and the justice system.

AMB first applied to become an AMS-constituted club in August 2016. On September 14, 2016, the AMB Club received an email from then-Associate VP Administration Rob Willoughby stating that the application had been denied because the AMB Club’s mandate “overlapped” with the mandate of the AMS Student Society Healthier Masculinities Program.

AMB applied for club status again on January 31, 2017. Executive members of the club met with then-VP Administration for the AMS, Chris Scott, on February 24, 2017, to discuss the AMB Club’s application. On March 16, 2017, Chris Scott emailed AMB to state he had denied their application. In his email Mr. Scott cited AMB’s association with the UBC Free Speech club and AMB’s association with the Canadian Association For Equality (“CAFE”) as reasons for his decision. He further told the club that it was the opinion of the AMS Women’s Centre and Feminist Collective that AMB was “insufficiently cooperative” with the Feminist Collective.

The AMB Club applied for club status a third time on September 28, 2017. On October 31, Pooja Bhatti, VP Administration, emailed AMB to state the AMB Club’s application had again been denied. This time, the reason provided was that the AMB Club’s “goals are fulfilled by… the Healthy Masculinities program,” which Ms. Bhatti claimed is “very similar” to the AMB Club’s mandate.

Without being granted club status by the AMS Student Society, the AMB Club cannot participate in Club Days and Imagine Day, book space in buildings owned by the AMS Student Society or UBC Vancouver without paying a fee, or access general funding available to all AMS-constituted student clubs.

The Justice Centre is representing AMB members as it seeks to reverse the AMS decision to deny club status.

PARLA v. City of Prince Albert

The City of Prince Albert maintains a courtesy flag pole in Memorial Square at City Hall and permits groups or organizations to fly the flag “to help increase public awareness of their programs and activities.”  The City of Prince Albert regularly grants applications to use the courtesy flag pole, and issues proclamations in support of various causes, including Falun Dafa, hunger awareness, naturopathic medicine, national public works, paramedics services, motorcycle awareness, occupational health and safety, LGBT Pride, gender diversity, transgenderism, literacy, seniors and Saskatchewan Ukrainians.

PARLA is a non-profit organization, comprised of Prince Albert and area residents, which seeks to promote the sanctity of life at all stages of development.  PARLA’s work includes hosting Pro-Life events such as “Celebrate Life Week” and “Life Chain”, as well as other activities, such as providing aid to women and families with unplanned pregnancies.

As explained in the filed affidavit of Valerie Hettrick, PARLA has been permitted to raise a flag on the City’s courtesy flag pole for “Celebrate Life Week” for the past 20 years.  Since 2007, PARLA has flown the same pink and white flag with a logo of “Umbert the Unborn”, a cartoon fetus. The phrases “Celebrate Life Week” and “Please Let Me Live” also appear on the flag.

However, on or around May 4, 2017, PARLA was informed by Prince Albert Mayor Greg Dionne that their flag could not be raised as it was not a “national flag” or “nationally recognized flag”.  The Mayor stated that Celebrate Life Week would still be proclaimed.

PARLA sent a letter to the Mayor, requesting that he clarify in writing the requirement for a “national” flag and specify what bylaw or policy that requirement was based on.  PARLA never received a response to its letter.

The Mayor later informed the media that PARLA’s flag, used since 2007, would never again fly at City Hall, but that he would be open to a different pro-life flag.

The Justice Centre has filed a court application against the City of Prince Albert, seeking a reversal of the City’s rejection of the Prince Albert Right to Life Association’s (“PARLA”) application to continue with its annual raising of a pro-life flag.  The court application, filed on November 6, seeks judicial review of the City’s decision to deny PARLA’s application to raise their flag, and a declaration that the decision is “arbitrary, unreasonable and contrary to the principles of natural justice and procedural fairness.” The court application further seeks a declaration that the decision to deny a flag raising permit violates sections 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Finally, the application seeks a court order to permit PARLA to raise their flag on the City’s courtesy pole.

C.D. and N.D. v. Alberta Child and Family Services

The Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms (JCCF.ca) has filed a court application  against Alberta Child and Family Services on behalf of an Edmonton couple whose application to adopt children was denied due to their religious beliefs about marriage and sexuality.

The married couple, who are referred to in filed court documents as “C.D” and “N.D.,” have no children of their own and are currently unable to conceive due to medical complications.  N.D. was adopted at birth himself, and C.D. was keen to adopt an older child, as she explains in her filed Affidavit: “My heart has ached for the older children in foster care that I have met, who I know are unlikely to ever get adopted because of their age. I want to offer kids like these a home and show them that they are valued.”

On October 7, 2016, C.D. and N.D. met with a Child and Family Services intake worker to submit their application to adopt. Their file was assigned to Catholic Social Services in Edmonton, which began the Home Study process, which considers applicants’ financial, emotional and social stability and overall fitness to adopt. Catholic Social Services recommended that the couple be approved for adoption, and supplied this recommendation to Alberta Child and Family Services.

On March 6, 2017, Catholic Social Services advised the couple that Child and Family Services had further questions in regard to the couple’s beliefs regarding sexuality. The Home Study had evidenced that the couple are Evangelical Christians with biblical views on marriage and sexuality. C.D. and N.D. reiterated their commitment to treating any child in their care with unconditional love, respect, and compassion regardless of what the child chose to do, and regardless of the child’s sexual orientation or behavior.

On March 13, Catholic Social Services advised C.D. and N.D. that it was reversing its recommendation that they be approved for adoption. The rejection letter enclosed a revised Home Study Report that stated the couple should not be approved as adoptive parents because they would be unable to “help” a child who “has sexual identity issues”. The rejection letter did not explain how or why the couple would be unable to “help” a child that they valued, loved and respected. The couple asked Catholic Social Services to reconsider their decision, but were refused.

On May 3, the couple met with two Child and Family Services staff, who informed them that they had denied the couples’ application to adopt. One of the staff, a Casework Supervisor explained that Child and Family Services considered their religious beliefs regarding sexuality to be a “rejection” of children with LGBT sexual identities, and that this stance was the “official position of the Alberta government”. The couple was subsequently informed that the denial of their application was final.

The Justice Centre is representing C.D. and N.D. as they challenge Alberta Child and Family Services’ decision.  The Justice Centre’s court application, filed on November 1, seeks judicial review of the May 3, 2017 decision of Child and Family Services to deny adoption to C.D. and N.D. on the basis of their sincere religious beliefs in regard to marriage and sexuality, and a declaration that the decision is “unreasonable and void by virtue of arbitrariness, bias, bad faith, as well as breaches of procedural fairness and natural justice.”

The court application further seeks a declaration that the decision to deny adoption violates sections 2(a) and 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the Alberta Bill of Rights and the Alberta Human Rights Act. Finally, the application seeks a court order to approve C.D. and N.D. as adoptive parents.

uOttawa Students for Life v. Student Federation of the University of Ottawa

The Justice Centre has written to the Student Federation of the University of Ottawa (SFUO) to demand that it reverse its decision to revoke club status from uOttawa Students for Life (SFL).

SFL has been a registered campus club for the past 10 years.  During this time, SFL members have peacefully held events and shared their views on life issues.  SFL seeks to promote the value of all human life from conception to natural death, and engages other students in discussion and debate, consistent with the purpose of the university.

SFL requested club status in the fall semester and received an email on Friday, October 13, 2017, notifying SFL that it had been approved as a club by the SFUO.  However, one week later, on Friday, October 20, 2017, SFL received an email from the SFUO stating that SFL had been removed from the SFUO Clubs System. The email stated that the decision to revoke club status was “due to the ways in which your mandate is in contention with the SFUO’s principles.”

This decision to revoke club status follows a prior SFUO decision to censor SFL. On Thursday, September 28, 2017, an executive of the SFUO ordered SFL club members to stop tabling in the Jock Turcot University Centre on campus, despite SFL having used the proper channels to book space for the tabling. SFUO attempted to justify its decision by citing unspecified complaints received about SFL.  SFL was further informed that their club goes against unspecified SFUO policy, implying that SFL’s views on life issues could not be expressed there. The SFL members who were tabling were told that University of Ottawa Protection Services would be called if they did not leave the Jock Turcot University Centre, and so they left, less than 45 minutes into their tabling event.

Recognition of club status from the SFUO is crucial for a student group to engage with other students at the University of Ottawa. Without it, students cannot access space and resources available to other student clubs and funded through mandatory SFUO fees.

The Justice Centre’s letter to SFUO concludes:

We demand that the Constitutional Committee of the Board of Administration of the SFUO exercise its authority to correct the unlawful decision, and that the SFUO return club status to SFL and its position in the SFUO Clubs System no later than November 3, 2017.

Students for Life v. Brandon University Student Union

Just a year after students at Brandon University in Manitoba regained the right to participate in student life again after having their student group status revoked by their student union, the student group Brandon University Students for Life (SFL) is facing renewed censorship and hostility from the Brandon University Student Union (BUSU) after the union refused to permit SFL to poster.

On October 17, 2017, SFL submitted a poster to BUSU in order to post it in the Knowles Douglas Student Union Centre.  The poster contains two images of developing fetuses, followed by an image of forceps, a tool used to perform abortions. The caption reads “Growing…Growing…Gone.”  The poster then states “Abortion Kills Children” and invites students to attend Students for Life’s next meeting.

On October 19, 2017, SFL received an email from Mohammed Agavi, Vice President External for BUSU, informing SFL that it could not post its posters in the KDC.

Mr. Agavi relied upon Policy #2016 which states that BUSU will not accept advertising that is “sexist, racist, homophobic, discriminatory or derogatory to any group of people.”  SFL’s poster is not “sexist, racist, homophobic, discriminatory or derogatory”.  Rather, Mr. Agavi states that SFL’s poster was deemed to be “triggering, offensive and aggressive to a large member [sic] of the student body”.  The Policy does not in fact prohibit expression deemed to be “triggering”, “offensive” or “aggressive”, terms with very subjective definitions.

BUSU’s hostility towards SFL dates back to 2012, when BUSU initially refused to grant club status to SFL.  After receiving a warning letter from the Justice Centre, BUSU changed its position and granted student group status to SFL in September 2013.  However, in November 2015, BUSU revoked SFL’s student group status without informing SFL until January 2016.  The reasons produced by BUSU for this decision were, inter alia, that SFL’s pro-life views made some students feel “uncomfortable” and “intimidated”. The Justice Centre filed a court application on behalf of SFL against BUSU for its unlawful decision to revoke SFL’s club status.

SFL student group President Stephanie Kehler expressed her disappointment with BUSU’s latest attempt to censor her group, stating:

We want our message about the seriousness of abortion to be heard  by the students of Brandon University. The students union has no right to control what the students should and should not be learning.  We are saddened by the actions that the students union has made against us, the very students they claim to support.

The Justice Centre has written to BUSU to demand a reversal of their decision to prohobit SFL to poster, to cease its repeated censorship of SFL. The letter, sent October 25, requests a response no later than November 2, 2017.

Judicial Committee of the Highwood Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses & Highwood Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses v. Randy Wall

The Justice Centre has been granted intervenor status in the case of the Judicial Committee of the Highwood Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses & Highwood Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses v. Randy Wall, which will be heard by the Supreme Court of Canada on November 2, 2017.

Randy Wall became a Jehovah’s Witness (JW) in 1980, at the age of 20.  In 2014, he was disfellowshipped (expelled) after a local church committee determined that he was not sufficiently repentant for having been drunk and verbally abusive to his wife.

Mr. Wall appealed his expulsion to a higher committee within the JW organization, and ultimately to the governing Watchtower Society of Canada, without success.  He then took the JWs to court, arguing that he had been wrongly expelled, and that the hearings and the process were unfair.  As a realtor, Mr. Wall also claimed to have lost about half of his client base, because JWs now refused to have any business dealings with him, or even speak with him.

Rather than recognize that freedom of association prevents government (including courts) from interfering with the membership decisions of private associations, the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench ruled that it had the jurisdiction to review the JWs’ membership decision.  This ruling was affirmed by the Alberta Court of Appeal.

The Justice Centre will argue before the Supreme Court of Canada from its unique and non-religious perspective that freedom of association under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Alberta Bill of Rights guarantees the freedom of private, voluntary associations, including the Highwood Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses, to determine membership criteria, to determine which individuals meet the criteria for membership, and to enforce these membership criteria, immune from judicial review. In consequence, neither courts nor governments can legally compel citizens to associate together unwillingly.

The Justice Centre’s will argue that freedom of association benefits not only religious institutions, but also Canada’s atheists and agnostics, and the many theists who do not embrace any particular religion. Improper judicial oversight in the instant case threatens every private organization and association in Canada.

Nicholas Troller v. Manitoba Public Insurance

The Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms (JCCF.ca) Centre has filed a court application against Manitoba Public Insurance (MPI) on behalf of Winnipeg resident Nicholas Troller, whose personalized Star Trek licence plate was deemed “offensive” by MPI.

Mr. Troller, an enthusiast of Star Trek, applied and paid the required fee to receive the personalized licence plate “ASIMIL8” in 2015.  MPI approved his application and issued the plate.  Mr. Troller installed the plate on his family vehicle, along with a licence plate border that stated “WE ARE THE BORG” and “RESISTANCE IS FUTILE”.  The plate and accompanying border are a reference to Star Trek.

As stated in his filed Affidavit, Mr. Troller has been approached by many people commenting positively on the plate and asking for pictures with it.  The plate was renewed by MPI in 2016 without question or concern.

On April 26, 2017, Mr. Troller received a letter from MPI informing him that the plate “is considered offensive.”  The letter does not say why the plate is considered offensive, or by whom. In its letter, MPI informed Mr. Troller that he had until May 1, 2017, to surrender his plate, and did not provide him any recourse to appeal its decision.

The Justice Centre wrote to MPI on May 29, 2017 demanding that it reinstate Mr. Troller’s licence plate no later than June 9, 2017. MPI responded on July 7, stating it was “unable to reinstate the plate as requested”.

Nicholas Troller seeks a declaration from the Court that MPI’s decision to revoke his personalized plate is a violation of his Charter-protected right to free expression. The court application further seeks reinstatement of Mr. Troller’s plate, and/or a quashing of the initial decision to revoke.

Mr. Troller has first-hand experience with the unreasoning grind of bureaucracy, noting in his Affidavit:

The irony of the rescission of my freedom of expression is not lost on me: I have been assimilated by the bureaucratic machine. The expression on the Plate has been subsumed and erased. Like the Borg, MPI is vastly more powerful than I. And like the Borg, it feels no need to explain itself to the people in its path when it suddenly reverses course.

This matter has been adjourned for the purposes of conducting cross examinations. Further Court dates pending.

Cornerstone Christian Academy v. Battle River School Division

Founded in 1986, Cornerstone Christian Academy (CCA) is a school in Kingman, Alberta, one-hour south-east of Edmonton.  It provides K-12 education for approximately 180 students.

Parents in Camrose, Tofield and other towns have chosen to send their children to CCA because they agree with the school’s commitment to integrate knowledge of the Bible and its relevance into the approved Alberta curriculum.

In 2009, CCA entered into an agreement with the public school board, the Battle River School Division (BRSD), pursuant to provincial legislation which encourages school boards to incorporate “alternative programs”.  Alberta law provides parents with choices to have their children attend various alternative programs, which focus on sports, art, music, foreign languages, different religions, etc.

In 2017, BRSD issued a demand that CCA should not read or study “any scripture that could be considered offensive to particular individuals,” and suggested that CCA was not in compliance with the School Act and human rights legislation.

The BRSD dismissed an eight-page legal letter sent by the Justice Centre on June 8, on behalf of CCA, stating: “As for the board’s [BRSD’s] position it remains the same.” Consequently, CCA went public, and following a public meeting, BRSD agreed to meet with CCA.

Following two face-to-face meetings between BRSD and CCA representatives, BRSD agreed to issue a joint statement with CCA indicating that “[n]either the Board nor BRSD employees will censor the reading or teaching of the Bible at Cornerstone School.”  The statement also noted that “[a] productive dialogue occurred and both parties are eager to continue to work together.” The statement was made available to parents and staff at CCA.

On Friday, June 23, BRSD presented CCA with a proposed “Addendum” to the BRSD-CCA Agreement, to prohibit public disclosure of information in the future.

CCA responded on June 27, stating, in part, that “the Proposed Addendum seems to be a gag order, which we believe is inappropriate in the context of interactions between a representative parent Society and a public school Board.  The Society represents a community of people who have a vested interest in issues affecting CCA, and consequently we can not agree to the requirements and broad restrictions in the Proposed Addendum.”

On June 29, 2017, BRSD notified CCA that it was terminating the Agreement between BRSD and the Cornerstone Christian Society of Camrose.  This means that, unless the decision is reversed, BRSD will no longer operate Cornerstone Christian Academy as of June 30, 2018.

The written legal agreement between CCA and BRSD serves to fulfil the Alberta legislature’s stated objective to support diversity and parent choice through alternative programs.  Under Alberta law, these alternative programs include schools dedicated to various religious teachings (including Christianity, Judaism, Sikhism and Islam), sports, differing educational philosophies, etc.

In its agreement with CCA agreement, BRSD promises: “The Board will not attempt to change the essential nature of the CCA program, as set out in the agreed upon School Vision and Purpose as outlined in Schedule A.”   The School Vision and Purpose document clearly commits Cornerstone to be a Christian School, based on teaching from the Bible.

On December 22, 2017, the Justice Centre filed a court application against BRSD on behalf of Cornerstone Christian Society of Camrose and three parents of children who attend Cornerstone Christian Academy. The court application seeks judicial review of the decision of the Battle River School Division to unilaterally terminate the Master Agreement between the Society and BRSD. The court application also seeks a declaration that the decision made by BRSD on June 29, 2017 to terminate the Master Agreement is unreasonable, is a breach of the Master Agreement, was done in bad faith, is contrary to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and is otherwise invalid. The application also seeks an injunction preventing the closure of Cornerstone until a court determines the lawfulness of the decision to close the school.

A hearing into this application will be held in Westaskiwin Court of Queen’s Bench on May 17, 2018.

Lorne Grabher v. Nova Scotia Registrar of Motor Vehicles

The Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms (JCCF.ca) has filed a court application against the Nova Scotia Registrar of Motor Vehicles (the “Registrar”) after it refused to reinstate the personalized licence plate of Dartmouth, NS pensioner Lorne Grabher, whose surname was deemed too “socially unacceptable” for the road.

Lorne Grabher first purchased the personalized license plate as a gift for his late father in 1991.  It has since become a source of family pride, spanning three generations – Grabher’s son has the family name on his own personalized Alberta license plate.

Mr. Grabher received a letter dated December 9, 2016, from the Office of the Registrar of Motor Vehicles which stated that a complaint had been received regarding his personalized license plate. As a result of the complaint, the Registrar decided to cancel Mr. Grabher’s plate, despite acknowledging it was an explicit reference to Mr. Grabher’s surname. The reason provided for the cancellation was that the plate could be “misinterpreted” as a “socially unacceptable slogan”.

The Justice Centre wrote to the Registrar on March 31, 2017. In its letter, the Justice Centre calls out the Registrar’s decision as “discriminatory,” “arbitrary,” “unreasonable” and in violation of free expression as guaranteed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It further states that the decision is “an affront to the dignity of Canadians, and particularly those Canadians who are not of Anglo-Saxon descent.” The letter advised the Registrar to reinstate the plate or face further legal action. The Registrar responded on April 6, 2017, indicating that it would not voluntarily reinstate Mr. Grabher’s plate.

On behalf of Mr. Grabher, the Justice Centre filed a Notice of Application with the Nova Scotia Supreme Court on May 11, 2017. A substantive hearing date is scheduled for September 5, 2018.

Forthcoming dates:

October 31, 2017 – deadline for filing of all affidavits

November 8, 2017 – deadline for any rebuttal material by Lorne Grabher

December 31, 2017 – deadline for concluding cross-examinations on affidavits

January 8, 2018 – deadline for filing of Lorne Grabher’s brief

January 18, 2018 – deadline for filing of Nova Scotia’s brief

February 1, 2018  – hearing of motions

September 5-6, 2018 – substantive hearing of the application, on the merits

Independent Baptist Academies v. Minister of Education

The Justice Centre has responded to an Order that Alberta Education Minister David Eggen issued to two Edmonton-area private Christian schools, in regard to Gay-Straight Alliances (GSAs).

On November 14, 2016, Minister Eggen received a Report from Edmonton lawyer Dan Scott, who had been asked to conduct an Inquiry into Harvest Baptist Academy and Meadows Baptist Academy, both operated by the Independent Baptist Christian Education Society (“IBCES”).  Together the two schools have 84 students, of whom only seven are high-school aged (grades 7-12).  Dan Scott’s Report concludes that both of these schools have been, and are currently, in legislative compliance with the School Act.  On March 22, 2017, Minister Eggen issued an Order telling the schools to comply with the School Act.

In a letter responding to the Minister’s Order, the Justice Centre points out the Minister’s failure to comply with the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (“FOIPP Act”), under which Eggen was ordered to release the report by February 6, 2017.  Further, the two schools in respect of which the Report was written did not receive the Report prior to its release to the media and general public.  Calgary lawyer and Justice Centre president John Carpay describesthis as “a lack of courtesy and professionalism.”

The Justice Centre has drawn attention to the 2015 Supreme Court of Canada decision in Loyola High School v. Quebec, in which the Court held that the government cannot “undermine the character of lawful religious institutions and disrupt the vitality of religious communities”, including religious schools. The Court was unanimous in finding that the Education Minister in that case had unlawfully limited freedom of religion.

The Justice Centre further refers the Minister to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which states that parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.  Canada’s Constitution also recognizes the right of parents to impart their values to their children through religious schools, regardless of how popular or unpopular that religion’s teachings may be at a particular time or place.

The Court in Loyola quoted from Article 18(4) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which Canada ratified in 1976, and which requires governments to “undertake to have respect for the liberty of parents to … ensure the religious and moral education of their children in conformity with their own convictions.”  This Covenant is legally binding on Canada and other party states.

In March of 2016, every school in Alberta submitted its anti-bullying policies to the Education Minister.  Catholic schools have submitted policies that do not allow GSAs to be set up in Catholic schools.  Muslim, Jewish, Christian and other religious schools have submitted similar policies, insisting that student clubs must be respectful of the school’s beliefs and values.

The Justice Centre’s letter reiterates the request from the two Edmonton-area Christian schools, and other private religious schools, to meet face-to-face with the Education Minister.

Christian Medical and Dental Society of Canada v. College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario

The Justice Centre has been granted intervenor status in two related cases in Ontario brought by the Christian Medical and Dental Society of Canada (“CMDS”) and others against the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario (the “CPSO”) (Court File Nos.: 499-16 and 500-16 in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice).

The CPSO has adopted policies that require medical practitioners to (1) provide “an effective referral” for medical procedures and services, even if those services conflict with a doctor’s conscientious or religious beliefs, and even to perform such services when “necessary to prevent imminent harm”; and (2) provide “an effective referral” for physician-assisted suicide, also known as Medical Assistance in Dying (“MAID”). The Justice Centre’s intervention in these two cases will focus on the Supreme Court’s repeated rulings that there is no Charter right to health care.  We make the point that there is therefore no Charter right to any medical procedure, including MAID.  Further, there is no right, Charter or otherwise, to demand that an individual doctor perform or provide an “effective referral” for a specific medical procedure or service that violates that doctor’s conscientious or religious beliefs.  On the contrary, doctors have protected conscience and religious rights under section 2(a) of the Charter, and government bodies like the College are required to respect those Charter freedoms. This case was heard June 13-15. The Court’s judgment is pending.

Kisilowsky v. Manitoba

The Justice Centre is representing a former Manitoba Marriage Commissioner, Kevin Kisilowsky, who lost his licence to perform marriages after he indicated that, based on his religious beliefs, he was unable to perform same-sex ceremonies.

Apart from Mr. Kisilowsky and a very small number of other marriage commissioners, almost all of Manitoba’s more than 1,000 marriage commissioners are willing and able to provide same-sex ceremonies. There is no need for Manitoba to require each and every marriage commissioner to be willing to provide this service. Mr. Kisilowsky is asking only that the government provide reasonable accommodation for him, as other provinces have done for their marriage commissioners, without imposing hardship on any party.

Servatius v. School District 70

In September of 2015, Candice Servatius received a letter from the principal of John Howitt Elementary School (JHES) in Port Alberni, BC, where her two children attend.  The letter informed parents that JHES would be hosting a “Traditional Nuu-chah-nulth Classroom/Student Cleansing” performed by a “Nuu-chah-nulth Member” in the school’s classrooms. The letter did not provide a date for when these cleansing rituals would take place.

The letter from the school described specific beliefs of the Nuu-chah-nulth: “everything is one, all is connected” and “everything has a spirit.”  The school’s letter described in detail how the cleansing ritual would “cleanse” the classroom of “energy” and cleanse the students’ “spirits.” The letter claimed that without cleansing, the classroom and even the furniture would harbour negative “energy” and would not be safe until the “energy” was “released.” The letter stated that each student would participate in the cleansing ritual by holding onto a cedar branch while having “smoke from Sage fanned over [their] body and spirit.”  Agree or disagree with these beliefs as you wish, but there is no denying that these aboriginal teachings are as “religious” as any that might be found in the Bible or Koran.

Concerned about the explicitly religious nature of the cleansing ritual, Mrs. Servatius went to the school to learn more.  She was shocked to find out that this “cleansing ritual” had already been imposed on her children.

Her daughter explained that she had been coerced by the teacher to participate in the cleansing ritual. When Mrs. Servatius’ daughter expressed to her teacher that she did not want to participate, the teacher told Mrs. Servatius’ daughter that it would be “rude” not to participate in the religious ritual and that “all” the students were “required” to participate.

In January of 2016, Mrs. Servatius learned from her children that a prayer based on Aboriginal spirituality had been performed at a JHES student assembly, with explicit references to an unspecified “god”.  JHES did not notify parents.

School District 70 denies that these religious ceremonies and prayers are violating the religious freedom of Mrs. Servatius and her children, and claims that these are merely “cultural”.

The School District’s claim that these are cultural practices is true, but misses the point. There is a world of difference between teaching children about Islam, and requiring children to kneel on prayer rugs in the direction of Mecca and say a prayer to Allah.  In similar fashion, students can benefit from learning about aboriginal religious beliefs without being coerced to participate in religious rituals and ceremonies.

The fact that a religious ritual like smudging might also be “cultural” is irrelevant to whether religious freedom has been violated, according to the Supreme Court of Canada.  In Mouvement laique quebecois v. City of Saguenay, the court ruled that “the state must neither encourage nor discourage any form of religious conviction whatsoever.  If the state adheres to a form of religious expression under the guise of cultural or historical reality or heritage, it breaches its duty of neutrality.”

In Saguenay, an atheist adult won the right to be spared the indignity of being present while City Councillors said a non-denominational prayer that was opened and concluded with the words “in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.”  He was not required to participate in the prayer, unlike Mrs. Servatius’ children, one of whom was told by her teacher that it would be “rude” to refuse the “cleansing” of her “spirit” by Sage smoke.

The Saguenay ruling rejected a compromise policy to have the atheist leave the Council Chambers during the prayer, because this exacerbates discrimination: “If he chose to exclude himself from the prayer either by refusing to participate in it or by leaving the chamber, he would be forced to reveal that he is a non-believer… Such interference constitutes an infringement of the complainant’s freedom of conscience and religion.”

In spite of the cultural benefits that might flow from having children say the Lord’s Prayer in schools, courts have interpreted the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms as including a right to be “free from” religion.  That means not coercing children or adults to participate in any religious prayer, ritual, ceremony or practice.

The violation of religious freedom through the imposition of prayer on children in the classroom cannot be avoided by providing exemptions to excuse some children from participation.  The Ontario Court of Appeal in 1988 ruled in Zylberberg v. Sudbury Board of Education that mandated religious practices violate the religious freedom of students and parents, even if students have the right to be exempted from participating in the religious practice.  The court ruled that “Peer pressures, and the desire to conform, are notoriously effective with children. Does common experience not tell us that these things are so, and that such feelings might easily, and reasonably, lead some not to seek exemption, and unwillingly conform, or others to seek it, and be forced to suffer the consequences to their feelings and convictions? … The peer pressure and the class-room norms to which children are acutely sensitive, in our opinion, are real and pervasive … Thus the excusal provision in its operation subjects [non-conforming children] to a cruel dilemma.  In consequence, even devout children may well avoid claiming their right and simply continue to participate in exercises distasteful to them because of an understandable reluctance to be stigmatized as atheists or nonconformists simply on the basis of their request. …  children are disinclined at this age to step out of line or to flout “peer-group norms”. … The requirement that pupils attend religious exercises, unless exempt, compels students and parents to make a religious statement. … the exemption provision imposes a penalty on pupils from religious minorities who utilize it by stigmatizing them as non-conformists and setting them apart from their fellow students … the conclusion is inescapable that the exemption provision fails to mitigate the infringement of freedom of conscience and religion.”

In November of 2016, the Justice Centre filed a Petition with the BC Supreme Court in Nanaimo, BC.  Mrs. Servatius seeks a declaration that the actions of School District 70 in forcing her children to participate in a cleansing ritual and be subject to religious prayer have violated her and her children’s religious freedom.

The School District argues that children benefit from learning about aboriginal cultures, including aboriginal religions.  Yes, and one can teach kids about aboriginal religious beliefs without hosting religious rituals and ceremonies in the classroom.

UAlberta Pro-Life v. University of Alberta

On January 11, 2016, UAlberta Pro-Life applied for University authorization to set up a stationary educational display on campus on February 23 and 24, 2016.  On February 12, only eleven days prior to the scheduled event, the University of Alberta notified the students that they would need to pay $17,500 in “security fees” to proceed with their peaceful educational display.  In its communication, the University demanded that pro-life students pay for the wages of security guards and police, and costs of barricading the venue, and pay for the potential misconduct of people who would violate the University’s Code of Student Behaviour by obstructing and disrupting the display.  Unable to pay $17,500, UAlberta Pro-Life was forced to cancel its planned event in February 2016.

In March of 2015, UAlberta Pro-Life held a similar event, which (then) President Indira Samarasekera supported through a public statement that the University must facilitate and protect the peaceful expression of all views, regardless of popularity.  In defiance of the President’s clear statement about free expression and the rule of law, a student-led mob blockaded and obstructed the club’s display, in violation of the Code of Student Behaviour.  Although the University had advance notice that a mob was being organized to obstruct the display, and although Dr. Samarasekera had warned that any misbehaviour would be investigated and prosecuted, the University of Alberta Protective Services (UAPS) did nothing to stop the blockade of the club’s display.  UAPS did not photograph or seek to identify any blockading student, even though the Code clearly prohibits students from disrupting or obstructing University-related functions.

On March 11, 2015, UAlberta Pro-Life filed a formal complaint with UAPS against the disruptive students pursuant to the Code of Student Behaviour. It took UAPS over eight months to release a decision in regard to the complaint.  In its November 30, 2015 decision, UAPS confirmed that the University would neither charge nor prosecute the students who disrupted, blocked and obstructed the March 2015 display on campus.

On December 18, 2015, the Justice Centre wrote to the University of Alberta Office of Student Conduct and Accountability to appeal the UAPS Decision. On February 4, 2016, the Office of Student Conduct and Accountability dismissed the appeal.

In its court application, UAlberta Pro-Life seeks a declaration that the decision made by the University of Alberta to impose a $17,500 security fee on the club is illegal and unjustifiably infringes the fundamental Canadian value of freedom of expression, also protected by section 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.  The court application further seeks to prohibit the University from imposing a financial burden on the students as a condition for the exercise of their freedom of speech.

This court application also seeks a declaration that the decision made by the University of Alberta to condone the conduct of students who disrupted and blockaded the University-authorized campus event of UAlberta Pro-Life in March of 2015, is unreasonable and therefore illegal.

This case was heard June 8 and 9, 2017. On October 11, 2017, the Court upheld the decision of the University of Alberta to impose a $17,500 “security fee” as a condition for the campus club UAlberta Pro-Life to set up a stationary display on campus. The judge further upheld the University’s decision to condone violations of the Code of Student Behaviour directed against the pro-life club in March 2015. On October 12, 2017, UAlberta Pro-Life announced it would appeal the Court’s ruling.

Ryerson Men’s Issues Awareness Society v. Ryerson Students’ Union

The Ryerson Students’ Union (RSU) has denied club status to a student group seeking to discuss issues and views on campus that RSU executives disagree with.

The Men’s Issues Awareness Society at Ryerson (MIAS) is a student group established in 2015 by students at Ryerson “to host discussions and bring social awareness to issues that disproportionately affect men and boys, such as higher rates of suicide, homelessness, workplace injuries and failure in school.”  Nearly half of MIAS’ members are women.

On October 19, 2015, MIAS submitted its application to RSU for recognition as a student group.  At a meeting with RSU’s Student Group Committee on October 26, RSU told MIAS that there was no need for a men’s issues group.  RSU took the position that other groups like the Women and Trans Collective were already addressing many of the issues MIAS sought to focus on.  Further, RSU claimed that men have “systemic privilege,” and that a group focused on men’s issues would “harass” women and make them feel “unsafe”.

On October 27, 2015, MIAS was informed that its application for club status had been rejected. MIAS immediately appealed the decision, making numerous changes to its constitution to answer concerns the RSU had listed. These amendments expressly stated MIAS’ pre-existing commitments to remain independent of any external control, to reject all forms of violence and hate speech, to take all precautions for safety at any group functions, and to provide a safe place for discussions free of fear for personal safety. Nevertheless, on January 26, 2016, the RSU Board of Directors voted to reject MIAS’ appeal.

As a result of RSU’s decision to deny club status, MIAS is excluded from RSU club services such as funding, advertising, event approval services, and free room and facility bookings, even though MIAS members are required to pay fees to RSU.  RSU has recognized over 80 other student groups, ranging from ideological and religious clubs to shared ethnic and hobby clubs.  Without student group recognition, MIAS has been forced to hold events off campus, because they cannot afford to book event rooms on campus.  This has made it very difficult for the group to engage with their peers and attract new members.

The Justice Centre has filed a court application against RSU on behalf of MIAS.  In the court application, MIAS seeks a declaration that the decision of the RSU to deny their application for student group recognition (i) was contrary to the principles of natural justice and procedural fairness, (ii) was tainted by a closed mind and bias, and (iii) was not made in good faith; that it exceeds RSU’s jurisdiction and is contrary to RSU’s own policies and rules; and that it is unreasonable, discriminatory and contrary to fundamental common law values and the values of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, by failing to respect Ryerson University students’ freedom of expression and freedom of association.  This court application further seeks an order prohibiting RSU from limiting access to its services and other resources on account of the thoughts, beliefs, opinions, expressions or associations of students or student groups.

On January 17, 2017, the Justice Centre questioned current RSU President, Obaid Ullah, and Kevin Arriola was questioned by RSU’s counsel.  A hearing date is currently being sought.

On February 7, 2017, the application against the Ryerson Students’ Union was consolidated with the cases against UTMSU and the Student Association at Durham College and UOIT (both described below).  All three cases were heard together in Toronto, January 24, 2018. A decision was released February 26, 2018, with the court dismissing all three challenges. The students are considering next steps.

Speak for the Weak v. Student Association at Durham College and University of Ontario Institute of Technology

The Student Association of Durham College and University of Ontario Institute of Technology (“Student Association”) refused to grant club recognition to the student group, Speak for the Weak, due to its stance on abortion.  The Student Association claims that allowing a pro-life club on campus would constitute “systemic societal oppression”, and would violate “human rights”.  The Student Association further claims that only clubs which support abortion are “equity-seeking” and therefore allowed on campus.

Speak for the Weak’s application for club status was denied in September 2015.  The students spent most of the fall semester unsuccessfully attempting to appeal the decision to the Student Association’s Board of Directors. Without club status, student groups cannot gain access to Student Association space and resources, making it very difficult to conduct activities and engage with the student body.

In a court application filed on behalf of Speak for the Weak, the Justice Centre argues that the Student Association has violated its own policies and rules, failed to follow the principles of natural justice, based its decision on irrelevant considerations, and failed to respect students’ freedoms of expression and association.

On February 7, 2017, the application against the Student Association was consolidated with the cases against UTMSU and the Ryerson Students’ Union.  All three cases were heard together in Toronto, January 24, 2018. A decision was released February 26, 2018, with the court dismissing all three challenges. The students are considering next steps.

 UTM Students for Life v. University of Toronto Mississauga Students’ Union

The University of Toronto Mississauga Students’ Union (UTMSU) refused to renew the club status of Students for Life for the 2015-16 year, effectively barring the student group from using the student centre and accessing student union resources.  As a result, in September of 2015, Students for Life could not join other campus clubs in setting up a table during clubs’ week—a key event for recruiting new members.

UTMSU had granted club status for Students for Life in the 2014-15 school year, but changed its mind specifically because of Students for Life’s “stance on Abortion”.  UTMSU’s mission statement includes a commitment “[t]o safeguard the individual rights of the student, regardless of race, creed, sex … or personal or political beliefs,” and lists “strength in diverse voices and opinions” as a “fundamental belief.”

After receiving a legal warning letter from the Justice Centre in October 2015, Russ Adade, UTMSU Vice-President, changed his previous rationale for denying club status to Students for Life, namely, the club’s stance on abortion.  Adade instead told Students for Life that the reason their club was denied status was “violations and discrepancies we found within your constitution in relation to the clubs handbook and UTMSU operational policy as it pertains to clubs.”

Students for Life immediately made the required changes to their constitution, but UTMSU has continued to deny club status, necessitating a court application.

The Justice Centre has filed a court application on behalf of Students for Life against UTMSU for violating its own rules, for acting with bias and bad faith, for breaching the rules of natural justice and procedural fairness, and for failing to respect students’ fundamental freedoms of expression and association.

On February 7, 2017, the application against the UTMSU was consolidated with the cases against the Ryerson Students’ Union and the Student Association at Durham College and UOIT.  All three cases were heard together in Toronto, January 24, 2018. A decision was released February 26, 2018, with the court dismissing all three challenges. The students are considering next steps.