The Constitutionality of the Proposed Federal Conversion Therapy Ban

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.

By Sara Tatelman

Courts often breeze by the first step of the Oakes analysis, I remember my first year constitutional law professor telling the class. That is, when determining whether a law infringing on Charter rights is justified, judges tend to give governments the benefit of the doubt that their laws have a legitimate purpose.

In Canada Without Poverty v. Attorney General (Canada), released on July 16, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice decision departs from that trend. In that case, Canada Revenue Agency determined nearly all of the applicant’s activities were political and therefore violated s. 149.1(6.2) of the Income Tax Act. Read alongside s. 9 of CRA’s Policy Statement 022, the provision requires registered charities to spend no more than 10% of their resources on “political activities.” While direct submissions to government don’t count towards the 10% max, communicating similar non-partisan policy messages to the public does.

Canada Without Poverty argued the ITA provision violated its s. 2(b) right to free expression, and that such public advocacy is essential for its fight towards poverty relief. Indeed, its executive director deposed that limiting such communications to 10% of its resources “is fundamentally at odds with achieving its charitable purpose” (para 39).

In his decision, Morgan J. noted that several national and international policies, such as the government’s 2017 Report of the Consultation Panel on the Political Activities of Charities and the Copenhagen Declaration, state that poverty relief is best attained through people’s full participation in decisions around societal well-being.

The government argued the ITA doesn’t violate the applicant’s freedom of expression because it can still engage in such communications, just without the designation of a registered charity. That is, it has a right to free speech but not subsidized speech (para 31).

But Morgan J. disagreed, noting that “any burden, including a cost burden, imposed by government on the exercise of a fundamental freedom such as religion or expression can qualify as an infringement of that right or freedom if it is not trivial or insubstantial” (para 44).

He also pointed to McLachlin C.J. and Major J.’s partial dissent in Harper, which highlights the importance of public communication in free speech: “The ability to engage in effective speech in the public square means nothing if it does not include the ability to attempt to persuade one’s fellow citizen through debate and discussion” (para 45).

Morgan J. added that Canada Without Poverty has a right to effective freedom of expression, which includes “the ability to engage in unimpaired public policy advocacy toward its charitable purpose” (para 47).

Having determined the applicant’s right to free expression was infringed, Morgan J. analyzed whether such infringement was justified. After examining statements of the Minister of National Revenue when the ITA provision was introduced in 1985, the wording of the statute and CRA’s policy statement, he found it was not.

“Government cannot justify limiting the right of free expression for charities for the very purpose of ensuring that charities use no more than 10% of their resources on the exercise of free expression,” he wrote (para 62).

Since this a rare case where step one of the Oakes test was not met – the government didn’t establish a pressing and substantial objective for the law in question – there was no need to go further. “Once the objective is determined to be unjustified, the means chosen to accomplish the objective are equally unjustifiable and the impairment cannot be minimal,” Morgan J. wrote (para 64).

He therefore struck down the parts of the ITA provision that required charities to limit their political activities to 10% of their resources, effective immediately. He also ordered a reading in of the phrase “charitable activities” in the provision to include all non-partisan political activities that further the organization’s charitable purposes.

So, charities, go forth and agitate (in a non-partisan way)!