CFE Blog

Courtesy of the Rouleau Commission I developed a late-onset interest in freedom of peaceful assembly (FPA) and s.2(c) of the Charter. Since then it has been an ongoing concern to me that in more than forty years s.2(c) has not received an authoritative interpretation, much less been considered or discussed in any depth by the Supreme Court of Canada.

Some 50 days after protestors set up a camp known as Occupy U of T, Ontario Superior Court granted the University of Toronto an injunction that ordered occupants to dismantle the site and discontinue their demonstration.

In spring 2024 student encampments at Canadian and US universities provoked strong reactions for and against pro-Palestinian demonstrations on campus property. While some Canadian universities called in police to disperse demonstrators, others looked to the courts for injunctions compelling students to disperse and abandon their encampments.

So far, this blog series has commented on City of Toronto v. Ontario (2021) and Ward v. Quebec (2021); offered a quantitative and qualitative synopsis of the s.2(b) case law; provided a critique of Irwin Toy and the contextual approach; and addressed the Supreme Court of Canada’s jurisprudence on the open court principle and freedom of the press and media. Even so, when complete the series will still leave much unsaid about s.2(b) and its challenges.

The fourth in this blog series on freedom of expression under the Charter addresses the open court or open justice principle and freedom of the press and media. Juxtaposing the two reveals how differently the Court responded to two issues that support the democracy-promoting values of openness, transparency and accountability.

Part 3 of a 5 Part Series: Section 2(b) Building Blocks: Irwin Toy and the contextual approach Building blocks