Doré, was suspended for the content of a letter he had sent to the presiding judge following a criminal proceeding for which he was acting as counsel.6 The plaintiff appealed the decision to suspend him on the basis that the letter was protected by his right of expression pursuant to section 2(b) of the Charter.7 The review process, escalating to the Supreme Court of Canada, considered the incompa. [...] The court ruled that the removal of the ads constituted an unjustifiable infringement on the expression rights of the plaintiff organization.18 In their reasons for judgment, the court said: “to the extent that the city wholly relied on Ad Standard’s rulings and Ad Standards failed to engage in the necessary Doré/Loyola analysis, the City’s decisions to remove the advertisements are unreasonable”.. [...] The manager then instructed the ETS garage to remove the ads until the investigation could be conducted.59 The investigation included a review of the advertisements and the respective complaints, a meeting with two members of staff, and consultation with members of the community.60 The City concluded that the messaging was offensive and unbecoming of the community, and thus would not be permitted. [...] In Guelph, the court discussed the lack of a Charter analysis conducted by the City, as well as the overreliance on Clause 1 of the Code to justify the removal of the ads. [...] This would include consideration of whether the statement is an expression of opinion or fact.147 The court in Grande Prairie also addressed the issue of inaccuracy in the context of limiting freedom of expression, stating: One relevant factor in the Doré analysis would be whether the advertisement is inaccurate or misleading […] The core of the right to free expression is to allow citizens to hav.
Authors
Related Organizations
- Pages
- 29
- Published in
- Canada
Table of Contents
- Purpose 3
- Definitions 3
- The Advertising Code 3
- 1 The Current Legal Framework for the Restriction of Expression 5
- The Doré/Loyola Framework 5
- The Guelph Case 6
- 2 Understanding Rights and Obligations of Parties to a Public Anti-Abortion Ad 7
- Obligations and Objectives of Cities 7
- Creating a Safe and Welcoming Transit Environment 8
- Protecting Vulnerable Groups 9
- The Captive Audience Doctrine 10
- Summary 10
- 3 Weighing Conflicting Charter Rights 11
- Charter Rights of Ad-Proposing Groups 11
- Charter Rights of Ad-Targeted Groups 11
- 4 Caselaw – Key Decisions, Outcomes, and Lessons 13
- Irwin Toy (1989) 13
- American Freedom Defence Initiative (2016) 14
- Hamilton – CHP (2018) 15
- Hamilton – ARPA (2023) 15
- Grande Prairie (2016, 2018) 16
- South Coast British Columbia (2017) 19
- Lethbridge (2020) 22
- 5 Overcoming Challenges in the Law 23
- Concerns about “Undue Reliance” on the Code 23
- Concerns about whether the Limitation is Minimally Impairing 24
- Objectively Verifiable Facts and “Inaccuracy” 25
- Mixed Treatment of Abortion as a Human Right or a Political Issue 26
- 6 Decisions and Legislation in the Reproductive Rights Context 27
- Safe Access Zones 27
- Regulation of Graphic Images of Aborted Fetuses 28
- 7 Conclusion 29
