The constitutional lawyer who proved in the Ontario Superior Court that the Parliamentary Protective Service (PPS) contravened the Charter rights of Campaign Life Coalition and one of its staff said the verdict potentially establishes an important precedent that extends beyond this specific case.

Hatim Kheir of Charter Advocates Canada said the court rejecting his team’s argument that there should be a particular high level of freedom of expression protection on Parliament Hill signifies a bigger win.

“The court didn’t really accept that argument,” said Kheir. “They found that Parliament Hill is just like anywhere else — the same analysis rules. If there was an infringement on freedom, was it justified? That kind of gives me a little hope because that means the decision isn’t isolated to the small plot of property that belongs to Parliament Hill. It could be applicable elsewhere if municipalities, for example, try to take similar actions.”

Advertisement

This victory for Campaign Life arrived on June 11, more than three years after the PPS prevented the organization and staffer Maeve Gainey (then Roche) from displaying abortion victim photography. A PPS officer deemed the images of fetal remains too graphic and that its exhibition violated signage rules prohibiting “obscene messages or messages that promote hatred” and “signs or banners that display explicit graphic violence or blood.”

Justice Calum MacLeod concluded in his decision that “the PPS did breach the Charter rights of the Applicants at the time in question. Given the framework, it was not a reasonable restriction on freedom of expression to prohibit the display of the sign.”

Advertisement

Kheir appreciated MacLeod’s critique that the PPS interpretation of obscene and hatred departed “the rigorous definition that those terms are given in criminal law and trying to apply a broader, more subjective standard.”

One legal remedy MacLeod granted in his verdict was an official declaration that Campaign Life and Gainey’s Charter rights were infringed. Their effort to strike down the signage rules the PPS cited was defeated, however, as the makers of the rules, the Committee on the Use of Parliament Hill, were not an official participant in this case.

The Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms (JCCF), which provided funding to Kheir and his team, is “reviewing the Court’s reasons and considering next steps in light of the issues left unresolved by this decision.”

Kheir elaborated the prospective path ahead in challenging the General Rules for the Use of Parliament Hill if an opportunity does emerge.

Advertisement

“The Committee on the Use of Parliament Hill is a body that is given its authority by the Speakers of both Houses of Parliament,” said Kheir. “Likely they would have to be made parties to the case. Then somebody’s ability to show abortion victim photography would be barred, and the PPS would have to rely on the provision of the rules that cite the blood contained in the images of not showing them.

“What we have from this decision is that images of that nature aren't obscene, and they don't promote hatred. They can't rely on those elements of the rules any more. So, if the PPS did try to rely on that remaining rule, then it would be brought into play in terms of a potential challenge in the future.”