Latest news with #CanadianConstitutionFoundation
BBC News
5 days ago
- Politics
- BBC News
Nova Scotia accused of 'safetyism' after banning entry to woods over wildfire fears
The Canadian province of Nova Scotia is facing pushback for what some have called "draconian" restrictions as it tries to limit wildfire risk in extremely dry conditions. Last week, Nova Scotia banned all hiking, fishing and use of vehicles like ATVs in wooded areas, with rule breakers facing a C$25,000 ($18,000) fine. A tip line has been set up to report Canadian Constitution Foundation, a non-profit that defends charter rights in the country, called the ban a "dangerous example of 'safetyism' and creeping authoritarianism".Tens of thousands of residents are under evacuation alerts in eastern Canada as the country experiences its second worst wildfire season on record. Nova Scotia Premier Tim Houston says human activity is responsible for almost all wildfires in the Atlantic province - official statistics from 2009 say 97% of such blazes are caused by people. On Wednesday, he defended the ban, which was announced last week, calling the province a "tinder box" that has not seen any rain since June. "I get that people want to go for a hike or want to go for a walk in the woods with their dog," Houston said during a wildfire update with officials. "But how would you like to be stuck in the woods while there's a fire burning around you?" He said the restrictions will be loosened once enough rain falls to mitigate the risk. "In the meantime go to the beach," he added. "It's certainly my hope that every single one of those is fully prosecuted and collected," said the premier. "It's just too serious of a situation by now."Houston confirmed that 12 people have been penalised for violating the ban so of them is military veteran Jeff Evely. On Friday, Mr Evely posted a video on Facebook of himself going to a Department of Natural Resources office saying he wanted to challenge the ban in court, and "the only way for me to do that is to get the fine". "I'm not trying to make trouble for you guys," Mr Evely, who ran as a candidate for the People's Party of Canada in April's federal election, is heard telling an is later seen walking into the woods, before going back to the office where he is fined C$28,872.50. Others defend the restrictions as a needed precaution since the province has seen two fires a day for the last week on Maher, a political journalist who lives in rural Nova Scotia, argued in an opinion piece for the Globe and Mail newspaper that there is little chance his run in the woods would have sparked a added, "but fires are mostly caused by dimwitted and careless people, and there is no way of separating them from their careful neighbours, so the ban is necessary". In a separate blog post, former Conservative Party campaign manager Fred DeLorey said that given the lack of rain, "when the provincial government announced a temporary ban on travelling in the woods due to extreme fire risk, I didn't complain. I exhaled". Officials fear a repeat of 2023, the worst-ever fire season in Canada and in Nova Scotia, when 220 fires razed more than 25,000 hectares of land in the province. The province of New Brunswick has brought in similar restrictions, barring use of public land. On Wednesday, the province of Newfoundland and Labrador banned off-road vehicles in forested areas until at least next week. It has brought in fines of up to C$150,000 for fire ban violations. Canada's 2025 wildfire season is the second-worst on record, after 2023. Fires happen naturally in many parts of the world and it's difficult to know if climate change has caused or worsened a specific wildfire because other factors are also relevant. According to the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, climate change is making the weather conditions needed for wildfires to spread more than 470 blazes are currently "out of control", according to the Canadian Interagency Forest Fire Centre. One is on the western outskirts of Halifax, the largest city in Nova Scotia, which continues to burn out of New Brunswick, Premier Susan Holt called it "a tale of two fires". She said crews had made progress on one fire, but were having less success with one blaze near the community of Miramichi. Military and coast guard units were deployed in Newfoundland and Labrador, while the worst fires are concentrated in the provinces of Saskatchewan and Manitoba. Three other provinces, British Columbia, Alberta and Ontario have also seen fire activity well above their 25-year averages.
CTV News
06-08-2025
- Politics
- CTV News
Group joins appeal of decision to fine mayor opposed to proclaiming Pride Month
In November 2024, the tribunal fined Mayor Harold McQuaker and the municipality of Emo, Ont., a total of $15,000. The Canadian Constitution Foundation will be taking part in a judicial review of an Ontario Human Rights Tribunal decision to fine a northern Ontario town and mayor $15,000 for refusing to declare Pride Month. In November 2024, the tribunal fined Mayor Harold McQuaker and the municipality of Emo, Ont., a total of $15,000 after an adjudicator ruled a comment by the mayor before a vote against the proclamation 'proved that the vote was motivated by discrimination.' 'The CCF will argue the tribunal failed to consider Mayor McQuaker's Charter-protected right to freedom of expression,' the group said in a news release Wednesday. '(The decision) failed to apply the legal framework for balancing expression and the right to equality, established by the Supreme Court of Canada in Ward v. Quebec.' Controversy began in 2020 The controversy began in 2020 when Borderline Pride asked Emo -- located 200 kilometres southeast of Kenora with a population of 1,300 -- to declare June Pride Month and fly or display an LGBTQ2S+ flag for a week during June. During debate over whether to make the proclamation, McQuaker said, 'There's no flag being flown for the other side of the coin … there's no flags being flown for the straight people.' Council declined to raise the rainbow flag, citing the lack of a municipal flagpole, and voted 3-2 against the Pride Month proclamation. Adjudicator Karen Dawson agreed with Borderland Pride that the mayor's remark prior to the vote proved that the vote was discriminatory, and awarded the group $5,000 from the mayor and $10,000 from the township. 'Human Rights 101′ In addition, the mayor and Emo's chief administrative officer were ordered to undergo a 'Human Rights 101' course within 30 days. Shortly after the decision, Borderland Pride was granted an order to garnish the mayor's bank account, taking the $5,000 plus costs. 'Human rights tribunals exist to prevent discrimination in public services, not to censor good faith political debates,' Josh Dehaas, counsel for the CCF, said in the news release. 'The bar for limiting political speech in Canada is high, yet there's no evidence the tribunal even considered the mayor's expression rights.' No date has been set for the hearing.
Global News
29-07-2025
- Politics
- Global News
Ontario city facing 2nd legal challenge over arrest of women holding signs in meeting
An Ontario municipality that blocked a group of women from presenting to its council is facing a second legal action over that decision and the arrest of three advocates which followed. The two legal threats stem from a June meeting in the city of Niagara Falls, where advocates from the Women of Ontario Say No were arrested by police for holding signs inside the council chambers. The dramatic meeting followed the city's decision not to allow the advocacy group to make a presentation about changes to municipal conduct laws in Ontario, which city staff said could interfere with an ongoing legal case. Banned from presenting, the group sat in council chambers with signs on their lap. They were told to remove them and ultimately arrested by police, who were called to the chamber by city officials. Story continues below advertisement Now, the Canadian Constitution Foundation is backing a lawsuit directed at Niagara Falls from one of the advocates to declare its bylaw banning any signs unconstitutional. Get daily National news Get the day's top news, political, economic, and current affairs headlines, delivered to your inbox once a day. Sign up for daily National newsletter Sign Up By providing your email address, you have read and agree to Global News' Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy A notice of application lodged by Lauren O'Connor, one of the advocates arrested in June, asks a court to rule Niagara Falls' decorum policy — which bans the display of all symbols and signs — unconstitutional. The constitutional advocacy group has agreed to work with O'Connor and the Women of Ontario Say No to take legal action to force Niagara Falls to change its policy, after twice writing to the city and receiving no reply. 'We were deeply disturbed by this completely disproportionate and heavy-handed reaction to people peacefully exercising their right to freedom of expression,' Christine Van Geyn, the litigation director for the Canadian Constitution Foundation, told Global News. She said the fact the signs sat in the women's laps while they caused no disruption shows the policy goes further than managing decorum. 'This involved people silently holding signs in their laps,' she said. 'There's already case law that says a total ban on signs inside council chambers is an unjustified violation of the right to freedom of expression.' The tension around the June meeting, which led to arrests, came at least partly from the topic on which the group wanted to present. Story continues below advertisement The Women of Ontario Say No initially contacted Niagara Falls council, hoping to present about municipal conduct, specifically advocating for the province to create a rule where municipal councillors charged with a criminal offence should be put on paid leave. In Niagara Falls, Coun. Mike Strange was charged with domestic assault at the end of May. He says he is innocent of the alleged crime, which has not been proven in court. With Strange's charge before the courts, staff at Niagara Falls told the Women of Ontario Say No that they could not present on the topic because it could interfere with an ongoing legal matter. A few weeks later, Strange himself was allowed to address the charge during a council meeting, where the women were again told they could not speak. Separate from the constitutional challenge, the Women of Ontario Say No is pursuing its own legal action against Niagara Falls, looking to be allowed to make its presentation and demanding an apology. The group told Global News it will be moving ahead with its own litigation.
National Post
12-06-2025
- Politics
- National Post
Josh Dehaas: Canadian cities are clamping down on free speech
With all the problems facing municipalities, from parks that look like refugee camps to potholes that can swallow a Mini Cooper, you'd think city councillors would have better things to do than dream up new ways to limit free expression. Article content Yet in the past few years, city councils throughout the country have created new restrictions on speech in council meetings, in streets, in parks, even in backyards. Many of these restrictions violate the Charter. The Canadian Constitution Foundation (CCF) is fighting back through litigation, with our new report on ' Canada's Most Censorious Bylaws ' and with our new Municipal Muzzle Award for the city with the worst restriction. Article content Article content Article content This year, Calgary won top prize. In response to protests against drag queens reading in libraries, Calgary passed its Orwellian-sounding Safe and Inclusive Access Bylaw, which threatens fines for protesting within 100 metres of library or recreation centre entrances if the protesters express an 'objection or disapproval towards an idea or action related to' various human rights grounds. Article content Article content The 'bubble zone' bylaw, which the CCF is challenging in court, bans not only speaking out against drag queens reading books to kids, but also speaking out in favour of it. It bans protests against transgender women competing in women's sports, and protests in favour. It bans 'no one is illegal' protests and anti-immigration demonstrations. All of this is obviously protected speech. Toronto and the neighbouring municipalities of Vaughan and Brampton have passed similar speech restrictions in response to anti-Israel protests. Ottawa may be next. The first runner-up for the Municipal Muzzle Award was Caledon, Ont., where councillors and members of the public speaking at council meetings are banned from using indecent, offensive or disrespectful language when talking about local, provincial or federal politicians. Council members are also banned from insulting the Royal Family. Since when are we not allowed to speak disrespectfully about the premier or the King? Caledon also requires every meeting to open with an Indigenous land acknowledgement, which is a form of compelled political speech. Article content Article content The second runner-up is South Bruce Peninsula, Ont., which has an outrageous bylaw that prohibits picketing in any public place unless authorized by the town, which amounts to a near-total protest ban. Picketing is defined as 'any activity associated with protesting/objecting and may include the display of signs, placards, flags, shirts, hats, etc. which portrays a message, symbols or marks, silence, shouting, chanting, singing, marching, standing and sitting.' You read that right: even silent protests are purportedly illegal according to the geniuses who wrote that bylaw. Article content Article content The good news is that we're fighting back. Last summer, Whitehorse passed a 'civility policy' that allowed the chair at council meetings to require citizens to remove or cover up any attire that he or she found 'disrespectful,' banned bringing signs of any kind into council chambers and forbid the use of 'microaggressions,' including 'unconscious' expressions. After the CCF sought judicial review, Whitehorse amended its policy to better protect free speech.
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.'
