Author: Tal Schreier

Freedom of expression in an election context: A purposive approach

Posted on by Tal Schreier

by Keely Kinley

On September 19, 2019, the Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed the City of Toronto’s legal challenge against the Province of Ontario for making unilateral changes to the size and structure of Toronto’s city council midway through last year’s municipal election period (Toronto (City) v. Ontario (Attorney General), 2019 ONCA 732). In a 3-2 decision, the Court of Appeal held that the province had the “legitimate authority” to reduce council from 47 to 25 seats, and that doing so was constitutional even in the middle of an active election (para 6).

At trial, the Ontario Superior Court ruled that Bill 5 – the legislation that changed Toronto’s ward structure – “substantially interfered” with both candidates’ and voters’ freedom of expression contrary to s. 2(b) of the Charter (Toronto et al v. Ontario (Attorney General), 2018 ONSC 5151). Specifically, the court found that Bill 5 interfered with candidates’ freedom to effectively communicate their political messages to voters and, by doubling the population size of City wards, also interfered with electors’ ability to express political views through voting. Nine days after the ONSC decision was released, the province won a stay of the ruling and the election proceeded with 25 wards on October 22, 2018.

On appeal, the court found that Bill 5 did not infringe the s. 2(b) rights of either candidates or voters. Justice Miller, writing for the majority, emphasized that s. 2(b) of the Charter protects against interference with expressive activity, not interference with expressive activity’s intended result; consequently, “legislation that changes some state of affairs (such as the number of electoral wards) such that a person’s past communications lose their relevance, and no longer contribute to the desired project (election to public office), is not, on that basis, a limitation of anyone’s rights under s. 2(b)” (para 41).

All five judges agreed that the Province had the constitutional authority to alter the structure of Toronto’s City Council, that legislation cannot be stuck down solely on the basis of unwritten constitutional principles, and that Bill 5 did not infringe voters’ 2(b) rights. However, MacPherson and Justice Nordheimer decried Miller’s characterization of the expressive activity affected by the ward changes as “a person’s past communications” as overly narrow and found that candidates’ 2(b) rights were infringed by the mid-election enactment of Bill 5.

MacPherson’s fiery dissent called for a purposive approach to freedom of expression in the election context and identified the 2(b) right implicated in this case as the “right of all electoral participants to freely express themselves within the terms of the election after it had begun” (para 128). Justice MacPherson cited para 1 of the Asper Centre’s factum to support this view: “The Charter’s guarantee of freedom of expression is a key individual right that exists within and is essential to the broader institutional framework of our democracy. In the election context, freedom of expression is not a soliloquy. It is not simply the right of candidates and the electorate to express views and cast ballots. It expands to encompass a framework for the full deliberative engagement of voters, incumbents, new candidates, volunteers, donors, campaign organizers and staff, and the media, throughout a pre-determined, stable election period.”

The dissenting judgment suggests that free expression in the election context requires that an election’s basic terms not be “upended mid-stream” (para 123). Reducing the size of city council during an active election made it difficult for volunteers, voters, donors, and commentators to carry on expressing themselves “within the established terms of [the] election then in progress” (para 128), and this is why Justice MacPherson’s finding that candidates’ 2(b) rights were infringed turned on the timing of the Bill; even though the province never directly curtailed expressive activity, it effectively “blew up the efforts, aspirations and campaign materials of hundreds of aspiring candidates” when it altered the ward structure in the middle of the election period (para 136).

While the majority did not adopt the Asper Centre’s broad, purposive view of freedom of expression in the election context, this was a successful intervention for the Centre. Its arguments were cited with approval in both judgments and provided important international context to this difficult case of first instance.

As of January 2019, Toronto City Council has instructed staff “to pursue a leave to appeal application to the Supreme Court of Canada in the event the Province is successful on its appeal at the Court of Appeal” (see the City’s public statement here: http://wx.toronto.ca/inter/it/newsrel.nsf/11476e3d3711f56e85256616006b891f/d354c2f99405923b8525847a0056fff8?OpenDocument); staff are now in the process of reviewing the court’s decision in detail. If the City appeals, the 3-2 split at the Court of Appeal and the national significance of the issues raised in this case might improve the odds of the Supreme Court of Canada granting them leave.

Keely Kinley is a 2L JD Student at the Faculty of Law. She was the 2019 Asper Centre summer research assistant and is currently leading the Asper Centre’s Climate Justice student working group.

Substantive equality in sentencing: Interventions in R v Morris and R v Sharma

Posted on by Tal Schreier

By Teodora Pasca

This fall, the Asper Centre is intervening in two cases before the Ontario Court of Appeal (ONCA) whose outcomes could significantly impact the province’s approach to sentencing marginalized people.

In R v Morris, the ONCA will consider the appropriate manner in which systemic factors should shape the sentencing framework for Black Canadians. Morris was convicted of possession of illegal firearms and received a sentence of 12 months, reduced from 15 months for Charter breaches. Among other factors, the sentencing judge was mindful of the social context in which Morris committed the offence with reference to reports from psychologists and social scientists with expertise on Black racism in Canada.

In R v Sharma, the Asper Centre and the Women’s Legal Education and Action Fund (LEAF) are jointly intervening on a constitutional challenge to ss. 742.1(c) and (e)(ii) of the Criminal Code, which eliminate conditional sentences for certain offences. Sharma is an Indigenous biracial woman convicted of a drug importation offence who, but for these provisions, would have been a suitable candidate for a conditional sentence.

Despite the Supreme Court’s aspirations in Gladue, Indigenous people in Canada continue to be criminalized and incarcerated at alarming rates. In particular, the overrepresentation of Indigenous women in prisons has increased substantially over the past 10 years. The criminal justice system in Canada is designed in a manner incompatible with Indigenous laws and conceptions of justice, which can be deeply alienating.

Though their historical circumstances are different, Black Canadians also experience significant systemic discrimination and bias when dealing with police, in the courts, and in corrections. Nationally, the rate of incarceration for Black Canadians is three times greater than their representation in the overall population, and the overrepresentation is even more pronounced for Black women.

Morris and Sharma illustrate how the overarching principle of substantive equality can illuminate sentencing decisions in cases involving marginalized people. Substantive equality is a constitutional imperative that requires courts to analyze the potentially discriminatory impact of laws with regard to their social, political, and legal context. Substantive equality plays a vital role in the criminal justice system, including at the sentencing stage. These cases suggest that sentencing judges should be mindful of systemic discrimination at all stages of the process and the ways in which that discrimination might have impacted the individual or their circumstances.

Since the Gladue decision came down in 1999, courts have been constitutionally mandated to consider the role that historical disadvantage, discrimination, and alienation play in cases involving Indigenous offenders. More broadly, the principle of restraint in s 718.2(e) of the Criminal Code requires courts to consider all sanctions other than imprisonment that are reasonable in the circumstances; though it is particularly vital for Indigenous people, this provision applies to all offenders in all cases.

It is settled that systemic factors such as historical disadvantage can be considered in sentencing cases involving Black Canadians. The question is how. The Crown’s position in Morris is that contextual factors should be considered only if the offender can establish a causal link between those factors and the offence. The Supreme Court in R v Ipeelee previously rejected the “causal link” requirement in the context of Indigenous sentencing. The Asper Centre argues it is unfair to ask marginalized people to demonstrate their life circumstances “caused” their crime — a burden even experts struggle to meet — and has put forward more robust guidelines for considering these factors that is informed by substantive equality principles.

In Sharma, conversely, the ONCA will consider whether eliminating conditional sentences for certain offences is incompatible with the Gladue framework. The potentially discriminatory effect of ss 742.1(c) and (e)(ii) is to deprive Indigenous people of a reasonable alternative to jail, despite the firm conclusions in Gladue and Ipeelee that alternatives to imprisonment must be prioritized. Asper and LEAF argue that the constitutionality of the provisions must be assessed in light of systemic discrimination against Indigenous people — especially Indigenous women, who are alarmingly over-represented both as offenders and as victims. Alternatives to incarceration are particularly essential when the system criminalizes acts that Indigenous women often turn to for survival, due to factors such as high levels of poverty, food insecurity, and overcrowded housing, as well as extremely high rates of physical and sexual abuse.

Collectively, Morris and Sharma acknowledge that consideration of historical and social context can be invaluable to the sentencing process for marginalized people. Requiring sentencing judges to at least turn their mind to these factors allows them to make a more informed decision about what is best for the individual and for society looking forward. While imposing a “fit” sentence is already the goal of sentencing, requiring that substantive equality shapes the analysis can make that goal a reality.

The Asper Centre’s intervener facta can be found at this link.  Sharma will be argued on November 20 and Morris will be argued TBD.

Teodora Pasca is a 2L JD Student at the Faculty of Law

The Constitutionality of the Proposed Federal Conversion Therapy Ban  

Posted on by Tal Schreier

by Jeffrey Wang

On June 21, 2019, the Federal government announced its intentions to criminalize conversion therapy in a letter to provincial premiers. While this is undoubtedly a positive step for LGBT+ rights, the constitutionality of this ban has been questioned.  

Conversion Therapy  

Conversion therapy can be defined as any practice that claims to change a person’s sexual orientation or gender identity/expression. The practice can take the form of psychological, medical, religious, or other type of intervention. Every major health organization has denounced conversion therapy. The Canadian Psychological Association (CPA), for example, released a policy statement in 2015 discrediting the efficacy of conversion therapy and recognizing its negative outcomes such as distress, anxiety, depression, negative self-image, difficult sustaining relationship, and sexual dysfunction.

History of Conversion Therapy Bans 

In late 2018, Alberta activist Devon Hargreaves began a petition to have Parliament ban conversion therapy for minors. While Parliament agreed that the practice is immoral, the petition was rejected on the basis that the provinces have the primary jurisdiction to regulate health professions. On April 9th, 2019, Senator Serge Joyal proposed Bill S-260, which amends the Criminal Code to ban the advertising of and material benefit from conversion therapy. This follows a similar strategy of banning the ancillary activities surrounding a practice, most notably employed within the new prostitution laws. This bill died on the Senate floor and given the upcoming federal elections, it is unclear if government will draft a new, similar bill.  

Within Canada, Ontario, Nova Scotia, and Manitoba have banned the medical practice of conversion therapy for minors. The cities of Vancouver and St Albert (Alberta) have passed by–laws that prohibit businesses from providing conversion therapy to minors. 

Potential Constitutionality 

Federalism  

Although conversion therapy is a health issue, in Canada v PHS the court clarifies that “Parliament…has historic jurisdiction to prohibit medical treatments that are dangerous, or that it perceives as ‘socially undesirable’ behaviour.” It has been agreed upon by professionals that conversion therapy is dangerous and socially undesirable.  

Freedom of Expression  

Banning conversion therapy may be seen as a s.2(b) Charter violation for professionals who perform conversion therapies. However, it is very likely that the ban would be justified under s.1, especially in light of the scientific consensus that it is dangerous and harmful. The s.1 analysis will likely follow the same path as R v Keegstra, where the expression stemming from conversion therapy will been seen as holding low constitutional status. Although it may not be hate speech, conversion therapy certainly damages the psychological integrity of individuals, as well as harms the broader LGBT+ community.  

Freedom of Religion  

Some have argued that banning conversion therapy may constitute a s.2(a) Charter violation for those who genuinely believe that their religion mandates them to be heterosexual and for practitioners who perform the therapy as a religious obligation. This argument is unlikely to succeed since there is consensus that conversion therapy is not effective at changing an individual’s sexuality. While some religions may enforce strict heterosexuality, conversion therapy does not make people heterosexual and thus cannot be protected under freedom of religion protections. Even if it is considered a religious right, the conversion therapy ban will likely be justified under s.1 as discussed above.  

Life, Liberty and Security   

It may be argued that the conversion therapy ban violates a person’s liberty or security interest in seeking psychological treatment, reminiscent of the Morgentaler decision. However, conversion therapy has been medically denounced and indeed creates many negative psychological reactions. Thus, it is unlikely that seeking this dangerous “treatment” will engage liberty or security under s.7.  

Alternatively, if Parliament criminalizes ancillary activities around conversion therapy but not conversion therapy itself, this may raise issues relating to the principles of fundamental justice, such as in the Bedford case. However, the ban on conversion therapy clearly does not place those who perform it in danger like with the prostitution laws, so it is unlikely to be overbroad or grossly disproportionate.  

International Law  

Canada’s international law obligations also support a ban on conversion therapy. Principle 18 of the Yogykarta Principles, a set of principles on the application of international human rights law to sexual minorities, declares that sexual orientation is not to be considered a medical condition. Furthermore, more severe practices of conversion therapy may meet the requirements of torture under the Convention against Torture and International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. 

Conclusion  

Overall, the constitutionality of the federal conversion therapy ban will depend on the precise form of the ban. However, medical professionals have reached a consensus on the harms of conversion therapy, a fact that constitutionally justifies its criminalization. It must be recognized that this ban is a huge step in Canada’s protection of LGBT+ identities.  

Jeffery Wang is a 2L JD Candidate at the Faculty of Law and is the co-leader of the Asper Centre’s current Refugee and Immigration Law student working group. 

The Constitutional validity of separate school funding

Posted on by Tal Schreier

by Jeffrey Wang

On April 20th, 2017, Justice Layh of the Saskatchewan Queen’s Bench released the decision of Good Spirit School Division No. 204 v. Christ the Teacher Roman Catholic Separate School Division No. 212, ruling that public funding for non-Catholic students to attend Catholic schools is unconstitutional. In other words, this decision means that non-Catholic students can no longer attend Catholic schools in Saskatchewan. As can be expected, this ruling has been controversial, leading the Saskatchewan premier to invoke the notwithstanding clause. It has the potential to affect all Catholic students in Saskatchewan, Alberta, and Ontario, three provinces subject to denominational school rights. On March 13th, the case was heard at the Court of Appeal but no decision has been yet released.  

Background  

In 2003, the public school in Theodore Saskatchewan was shut down due to an insufficient student population. The school board planned to bus all 42 students to a nearby school instead. However, since Saskatchewan is subject to denominational school rights under the Constitution, the parents of Theodore voted to open a Catholic school (St. Theodore Roman Catholic School) even though the majority of students were not Catholic. Nonetheless, the majority of the 42 students chose not to be bussed to the public school, meaning that the public school board received less funding. In response, the school board (Good Spirit School Division) launched a suit claiming that the Catholic school cannot receive funding for non-Catholic students based on s.93 of the BNA Act, and s.2(a) and s.15 of the Charter. 

Case Summary   

This case is over 200 pages long, addressing numerous constitutional and procedural issues. This article will focus on two of them. Firstly, is the government’s funding of non-Catholic students in Catholic schools a constitutionally protected right under s.93 of the BNA Act? Secondly, if not, does it infringe s.2(a) and/or s.15 of the Charter? 

s.93 of the BNA Act  

S.29 of the Charter is clear that Charter rights do not apply to the denominational schools protected under s.93 of the BNA Act. But what parts of denominational schools are barred from Charter review? In Greater Montreal Protestant School Board v Quebec, the SCC ruled that s.93(1) only covers the denominational aspects of Catholic/Protestant education and the non-denominational aspects necessary to deliver these denominational aspects.1 This has been termed the denominational aspects test. The Good Spirit School Division (GSSD) argues that the admission of non-Catholic students is not a denominational aspect since the purpose of denominational schools is to be separate from the majority.2 They assert that Catholic schools were historically seen as entirely separate from regular education, and that Catholic organizers did not historically want non-Catholics to attend.3 On the other hand, the Catholic school argues that no specific admission requirements were historically outlined for Catholic schools,4 and that spreading the word of God to non-Catholics has always been a part of Catholic education.5  

Justice Layh rules that the funding of non-Catholic students does not pass the denominational aspects test and thus is not immune to Charter review. He leans heavily on the historical fact that those who fought for separate school rights wanted those schools to be separate from the majority – they were a way for the minority faith to remove their children from majority influences and sustain their religion.6 In addition, he asserts that even if it is accepted that spreading Catholicism is a part of Catholic education, the protected denominational aspect of Catholic education is the transmission of Catholic values to Catholic children rather than non-Catholic children.7 With this view, he finds that the admission of non-Catholics into Catholic schools cannot be protected under the denominational school rights negotiated in the BNA Act.  

s.2(a) and s.15 of the Charter 

Proceeding to the Charter analysis, Justice Layh finds that funding non-Catholics to attend Catholic schools violates s.2(a) and s.15. He undertakes a religious neutrality analysis, ruling that funding students at the public expense to subscribe to one religion violates the government’s duty of neutrality under s.2(a).8 Similarly, Justice Layh finds that funding non-Catholic students to attend Catholic schools also violates s.15 – the funding allows members of the Catholic faith to promote Catholicism over other religions, and allows Catholic parents to fund education in their faith over parents of other faiths.9  

Conclusion  

It is unclear as of now where the law stands, since the appeal decision has not been released and the notwithstanding clause has been invoked. However, this case has already inspired litigation focusing on the admission of English students into constitutionally protected French schools.10 If Justice Layh’s decision is upheld, many Catholic school students may be forced to transfer schools and Catholic school boards around the country could lose large amounts of funding.  

Jeffrey Wang is a 2L JD Candidate at the Faculty of Law.

Asper Centre Caselaw Compendium for Detention Review Hearings

Posted on by Tal Schreier

This compendium of caselaw was prepared by Jim Molos and Devon Johnson, who are J.D. Candidates at the University of Toronto Faculty of Law and former Asper Centre Clinic students. During their Asper Centre practicum following the Clinic course, they conducted a survey of relevant Federal Court case law related to immigration detention hearings and compiled a compendium of jurisprudence to assist practitioners in martialling precedent to advocate for their clients’ best interests in immigration detention hearings.

  >> Asper Centre Caselaw Compendium<<