Latest news with #CanadianConstitutionFoundation
Hamilton Spectator
23-05-2025
- Politics
- Hamilton Spectator
Whitehorse civility policy updates floated after legal action
The city is planning on changing its civility policy — and it could result in a lawsuit against it being dropped. The policy, introduced last summer by the previous council, has been a controversial one: it attracted multiple delegates when it was first proposed. It passed with four votes in favour and two against. Then, after threatening legal action, the Canadian Constitution Foundation, a charity group, filed a court challenge against the policy on the grounds it violates the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The original policy set rules regarding the conduct of people entering city hall chambers while council meets. Among other things, the policy banned micro-aggressions, signs, physical attacks, threatening behaviour, and verbal abuse, including threats. The original policy also bans participants from wearing clothing that has imagery or language which is discriminatory, offensive, detrimental, profane, racial, sexist, violent or vulgar. At the May 20 standing committee of city council, corporate services director Valerie Braga introduced a new version of the civility policy with changes at least partially motivated by the legal challenge initiated late last year. The policy overhaul completely axes the section about micro-aggressions and allows certain signs based on sign size and content. It includes a definition of hate speech and changes the parameters of what type of clothing is permitted inside city council chambers. The petition filed with the Yukon Supreme Court by the Canadian Constitution Foundation in November alleged the civility policy is contrary to section 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which guarantees freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression. It also includes freedom of the press and other media of communication. The lawyer representing the Canadian Constitution Foundation in this lawsuit, Vincent Larochelle, told the News that his client would be backing down from the lawsuit should the updates to the policy be adopted. 'They consider the amendments to address the vast majority, the essence of what their lawsuit was,' Larochelle said. 'My client's issue was with how vague and wide-ranging and subjective that previous policy was. It covered all sorts of language or expression, from attire, signs, language and even just offensive stuff, but the fact that you're offended by what someone is saying doesn't make it necessarily hate speech.' He said his client said the original policy was 'flagrantly unconstitutional.' One of the things highlighted in the petition, as noted by Larochelle, was that the policy was brought forth in the wake of people voicing support for the people of Gaza within city chambers. The Middle Eastern enclave has been under Israeli bombardment since the Hamas-led Oct. 7 massacre in 2023. A United Nations report tallying cumulative deaths as of May 14, 2025, said 1,200 people were killed in that massacre. The same United Nations report said nearly 53,000 Palestinians have been killed since October 2023. Last summer, delegates in Whitehorse packed the public gallery to speak on a motion to publicly support calls for a ceasefire. At May 20's standing committee meeting, Braga told councillors about the history of the policy when presenting the changes. 'When the policy was originally brought forward, we had gone through a period of time where we had a few contentious meetings. Topics were heated. People took positions on one side or the other. There was a gap in extremes, for lack of a better term,' she said. 'And what we wanted to do was to ensure that all participants felt safe coming into chambers, felt able to speak their piece, that council also felt that they were respected through the process, and were able to give respect back to participants. It was very important to the council of the day that people feel safe within this room. That was the main intent of the policy.' The new policy focuses on hate speech, Larochelle said, and there are recognized limits to that form of expression. The Canadian Constitution Foundation does not take issue with that type of targeted policy. 'We need to be able to have rigorous debates in our society, and the civility policy as amended, if it's accepted, would presumably allow that to happen in the context of city council meetings,' said Larochelle. 'What the lawsuit was getting at was that vagueness, the micro-aggression, the sign ban, the attire ban, and all that's essentially gone.' The majority of the current council was elected in October, after the civility policy was installed by the previous council. Only Coun. Dan Boyd and Mayor Kirk Cameron are holdovers from the previous council: they both voted in favour of adopting the policy when it was presented last year. Coun. Lenore Morris, who is also a lawyer, said it is incumbent on city council to not infringe on political speech anymore than necessary. 'I think everybody who's on city council really wants to encourage engagement and polite, courteous, lively discourse with the public, and I think that the changes that we are making to the policy, or that we are proposing to make to the policy, will permit that,' she said. Coun. Jenny Hamilton also said that she was upset as a citizen when the policy was installed last year, and that she supports the changes. Larochelle said his client still has some minor concerns regarding the policy — specifically on some remaining vagueness within the policy and the limits on signs — but they do not believe the updated policy would warrant a lawsuit. He said the Canadian Constitution Foundation considers the amendments a victory. 'The lawsuit seems to have triggered a pretty significant overhaul of the policy. So even better, if we can affect change without having to go to court.'
National Post
22-05-2025
- National Post
Use of traffic patrol drones by Kingston Police unconstitutional, group says
The Canadian Constitution Foundation and Kingston Police are at odds after the force recently used drones to combat distracted drivers. Article content Article content On May 7, 2025, Kingston Police held a distracted driving blitz in three locations in Kingston. Article content Those locations included Division Street at John Counter Boulevard, Sir John A. Macdonald Boulevard at John Counter Boulevard, and Hwy. 15 at Gore Road. Article content Article content Police said following the blitz that its traffic safety unit was given permission from NAV Canada to operate its DJI Matrice 300 drone in the above areas 'for the purpose of roadway enforcement.' Article content Article content According to a news release from Kingston Police 'the drone operator would use the zoom camera to record video while looking for cellphone use by drivers at these intersections. Once observed, details and directions of the vehicles and drivers were given over the radio to nearby waiting officers in police cruisers, where they would make an immediate stop and consequently issue an offence notice.' Article content A first-time ticket for using your cellphone while driving comes with a minimum $615 fine, three demerit points, a three-day driver's licence suspension, a Service Ontario reinstatement fee of $281 and could have consequences on insurance premiums. Article content According to the Canadian Constitution Foundation, a national and non-partisan charity that defends the rights and freedoms of Canadians, the method of using drones for surveillance was unconstitutional. Article content Article content CCF Counsel Josh Dehaas said they were notified about the blitz from a Kingston resident who contacted them, concerned that it was a violation of privacy. Article content It's a wrongdoing that Dehaas agrees with. Article content 'It's very clearly an unreasonable search, therefore a violation of the Charter of right to security against unreasonable searches and seizures, which is Section 8 of the Charter,' Dehaas said. Article content According to that section of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, police and other government officials cannot enter your property, search your belongings, or seize your property without a valid legal basis such as a warrant. Article content 'Its purpose is to protect a sphere of individual autonomy where you can live out your private life without the state surveilling you,' Dehaas said. Article content In the case of Kingston Police, one of the big questions Dehaas raised was whether or not using drones is considered a search. Article content 'You don't focus on what police are looking for, you focus on what this type of activity is going to attempt to reveal,' Dehaas explained. 'Let's say you have a drone and it's doing collision reconstruction or it's looking for a missing person, and it's at a high altitude, it's not going to reveal a lot of information about an individual person. But if you have a drone hovering near a car and you're using that to zoom in and see what people are doing inside that private space inside their car, you're potentially seeing what's on the screen of their phone. That is going to reveal a lot more private information than other uses of drones that police have done in the past.'
CBC
02-03-2025
- Politics
- CBC
What the 'Free the Beer' case can teach us about interprovincial trade
Gerard Comeau thought nothing of his 2012 trip from New Brunswick to Quebec and back again to pick up a carload of beer. He lived close to the border in Tracadie, N.B., and the prices were cheaper in Quebec. It seemed like a no-brainer. He certainly didn't expect a police sting, a five-year legal battle and a Supreme Court of Canada decision saying he didn't have the right to purchase that beer without impediment. "I can go buy any material anywhere in Canada. You can go buy 20 shirts in Quebec, no problem. Why wouldn't you be able to buy beer," said Comeau, over a decade after that fateful beer run. But Comeau's quest to "free the beer" is once again in the spotlight as U.S. President Donald Trump threatens Canada with tariffs and interprovincial trade gets another look. The looming threat of those tariffs has Canadian premiers vowing to remove interprovincial trade barriers, which the federal government says could add an estimated $200 billion to Canada's economy. Internal Trade Minister Anita Anand announced on Feb. 21 that the federal government would remove 20 of the 39 exceptions in the Canadian Free Trade Agreement, with most related to government procurement. "One of Canada's strongest trading partners is Canada. We are all hands on deck to promote freer trade here at home," Anand said in a statement. Those who have been pushing for free internal trade say it's about time. Others say it's still not enough, and if Canada is going to make it through Trump's trade war, more needs to be done. But not everyone is convinced. Comeau gets caught Comeau had no idea he was driving his beer into a trap in 2012. Court documents say the RCMP in New Brunswick were concerned about how often people were going to Quebec to buy beer, so they set up a two-day sting to crack down on it. Comeau bought a lot of beer, along with two bottles of whiskey and one bottle of liqueur. The purchase was well over what was allowed. So, on his return trip, the RCMP pulled Comeau over, slapped him with a nearly $300 fine and confiscated his booze. Comeau was determined to fight the fine, as it came with a provincial offence. That's when Toronto lawyer Arnold Schwisberg approached Comeau about taking on his case pro bono, funded by the Canadian Constitution Foundation. "I say this with admiration. Mr. Comeau is Joe Canadian. He is so relatable," said Schwisberg. Schwisberg had long thought the provincial trade laws were unconstitutional, specifically those around buying booze, and he wanted a chance to challenge them in court. He felt Comeau had the perfect case. "I truly believed then, as I believe now, that the interprovincial trade impediments in Canada are compromising our country's economic strength. And this is only now being recognized, even though there was an opportunity before the Supreme Court in 2017," said Schwisberg. Arguing free provincial trade The crux of his argument was Article 121 in the Canadian Constitution, which states: "All articles of the growth, produce, or manufacture of any one of the provinces shall, from and after the union, be admitted free into each of the other provinces." Schwisberg emphasized a literal interpretation of the word "free" and argued that the fine on Comeau was unconstitutional. Comeau was acquitted in provincial court by Judge Ronald LeBlanc in 2016. He even got his confiscated beer back. But that turned out to be just the battle, not the war. Bill Richards, who had represented the Crown, appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada, and it heard the case. "To interpret free as literally would have repercussions for provincial powers. Agriculture schemes and public health and environmental controls are not barriers designed to impede trade but [are] incidental," said Richards, looking back on the case. In April of 2018, the nine-justice panel unanimously agreed with Richards. They stated that provinces have the right to restrict the importation of goods from another province, as long as the primary aim of the restriction is not to impede trade. It found the Constitution's language applied to something like a tariff, but it didn't mean there could be zero restrictions. Schwisberg was disappointed, but not totally surprised, by the decision. "I realized that this had the potential to affect virtually every aspect of the Canadian internal economy. But I also recognized that there would be billions and billions of dollars of interests, that would make it very, very difficult to bring about this change," said Schwisberg. Why do these barriers exist? Part of the reason for these barriers is the difference in standards between different parts of Canada. Provinces and territories often have different rules and regulations around the creation of products such as booze and dairy. This affects a number of different Canadian products. Most Canadian wineries, breweries and distilleries can't sell or ship directly to consumers in other parts of the country. Most provinces have their own liquor retailers that have different rules related to selling, storing and labelling alcohol, though people are still able to buy alcohol from retailers in other provinces. It just comes with some limits, as Comeau found out. But Brian Lee Crowley says it's time for more of those barriers to come down. Crowley is the founder and managing director of the Macdonald-Laurier Institute. "If Canadians decide that they're willing to sort of bite the bullet and remove the trade barriers and upset some of the producer groups that are protected by those barriers, I think we will be able to raise our standard of living quite quickly," said Crowley. But there was pushback from industry in 2017, as many interest groups put their concerns to the Supreme Court, and there is pushback now. Removing those barriers would mean big changes for some industries in Canada, including dairy, egg and poultry, which rely on the supply management system to keep prices stable for farmers such as Mark Ricka. "It definitely gives me anxiety, right? It definitely makes you worry that the whole industry across the country would be up on the chopping block," said Ricka, a third-generation dairy farmer in Chilliwack, B.C. He says he understands it on some level. Who wouldn't want cheaper groceries? But he has concerns. He says some provinces would be able to produce milk cheaper, and therefore, sell it at a cheaper price than he may be able to in B.C. And that could put him out of business. Will it change? Crowley says those who support supply management have a lot at stake and are well-organized. And they have political support. Liberal leadership contenders Mark Carney and Chrystia Freeland, as well as representatives from the Conservatives and NDP all provided statements to CBC saying they support Canadian farmers and supply management. Those political leaders have also voiced their support for improved internal trade within Canada. But what about those whose livelihoods would be at risk if those trade barriers were knocked down? Crowley says there's a solution for that. Crowley says research into supply management has shown people are paying a premium on products such as dairy and eggs. The competition created by reducing trade barriers would bring down the prices of those goods for consumers, and with more money in people's pockets, government would be able to step in to help the industries affected by those changes. "One of the great things about economic growth is that means governments can take a share of that growth and use it to compensate the losers. That's a part of the role of government," said Crowley. Comeau still buys his beer in Quebec. While plenty of alcohol trade barriers remain, the provinces made a deal in 2018 to raise personal exemption limits on alcohol, letting Canadians carry six cases of beer, two cases of wine and six litres of spirits across borders. So as long as Comeau doesn't go overboard, he can buy his beer worry-free. And even though the barriers didn't come down in 2018, Schwisberg is hopeful they may come down yet. "It is the perfect time to further the Canadian dialogue about how we're going to strengthen our country economically by addressing the fact that it has been more difficult to trade with the Canadian province than it has been to trade with another sovereign nation, and that can't continue," Schwisberg.
CBC
07-02-2025
- Politics
- CBC
Murray Harbour councillor takes case to P.E.I. Supreme Court
Social Sharing A Murray Harbour councillor who posted a controversial sign on his property brought his case to P.E.I. Supreme Court on Thursday. Coun. John Robertson was temporarily suspended and fined by the municipality nearly a year and a half ago after he posted the sign. Robertson is pushing for a judicial review of his case, arguing his right to freedom of expression was violated. "This is a really important case for the freedom of expression of every single Canadian," said Josh Dehaas, counsel with the Canadian Constitution Foundation and one of two lawyers representing Robertson. "Yes, it's a small village. Yes, it's a small village council. But freedom of expression matters," Dehaas said. Robertson posted on a sign on his property on the weekend upon which National Day for Truth and Reconciliation fell in 2023. The sign read, in part, "Truth: mass grave hoax." Indigenous leaders interpreted the sign as calling into question the existence of suspected gravesites at former residential school properties. The mayor of Murray Harbour, the Abegweit First Nation chief and some others called for Robertson to resign from his position as councillor. A third-party investigation concluded Robertson violated multiple sections of the council's code of conduct. Those sections say, among other things, councillors must uphold the highest standards of ethical behaviour and not engage in discrimination. Robertson's lawyers argue he didn't post the sign as part of his council duties, so the code of conduct doesn't apply. "The code of conduct can't control speech of this nature," said Dehaas. "This type of political speech, on a private sign, on private property, is not something bylaw can control." Robertson was suspended from council for six months, fined $500 and ordered to apologize. He refused and applied for a judicial review of his case. Under provincial rules, Robertson only had one month after he was sanctioned to apply for a judicial review. He did not apply for three months. Lawyers argued in court Thursday over whether the judge should use his discretion to grant an extension and still hear a case. Robertson's lawyers told the judge Robertson had problems connecting with a lawyer in time and had a medical issue, which added to the delay applying for a review. The municipality's lawyer, Meaghan Hughes, argued Robertson declined to participate in the initial investigation and that there was no good reason for the delay. "There are hundreds of lawyers in P.E.I.," Hughes said. "To have only called one of them and not broadened your search during that time frame is not sufficient." The hearing on Thursday was about whether the judicial review should go forward. The judge did not make a decision or say when he will. In the meantime, Robertson is back serving on council. He has not paid the fine or issued an apology. The P.E.I. government has also ordered an investigation into Robertson's conduct — though that's on hold until court proceedings wrap up.
