Court Submissions

CFE Intervener Factum in the Ontario Court of Appeal This case concerns the Government of Ontario law, Security from Trespass and Protecting Food Safety Act, 2020, and associated Regulation whose stated purpose is to prevent trespass, protect animal safety, protect biosecurity of the food supply chain, protect those working with animals and prevent the adverse economic effects that these risks can create. The CFE intervention addresses how the Act and Regulation penalize employees who are prospective whistleblowers engaging in expressive activity in pursuit of truth and social discourse. The Act and Regulation also compel employee expression by mandating and controlling the timing of whistleblower disclosure. And although the Regulation purports to provide an exception for whistleblowers, it is so narrow as to be illusory.

CFE Intervener Factum – British Columbia Supreme Court. The issue is whether Vancouver Island University’s request for an injunction should be granted against the encampment on campus. After a review of the legislative context and of Canadian jurisprudence on the applicability of the Charter to specific actions of universities, the factum suggests that the University’s rights as a “property owner” and its statutory powers in the “management of its privately owned land” are not unlimited or absolute; that the University’s statutory power does not necessarily pre-empt or extinguish the Charter freedoms of those using its property for expressive purposes. Finally, the factum submits that, in acting as a singular arbiter for expressive rights on campus, VIU must inform its decisions with a view to the values that underlie Charter rights.

CFE/CAUT/CFS(O) Intervener Factum – Ontario Superior Court. The issue is whether the University of Toronto’s request for an injunction should be granted against the encampment on campus. The factum argues the University’s common law rights as “fee simple owner” of its property are not unlimited or absolute and do not pre-empt or extinguish the Charter freedoms of those using its property for expressive purposes, as are members of the encampment. It further argues that the Province of Ontario’s decision in 2018 to regulate campus expression transformed an area of autonomous university governance into one of Ministerial regulation and control, making the University’s actions in relation to freedom or expression and freedom assembly subject to the Charter. It also argues against the claim that immunity from the Charter is necessary to protect academic freedom. To the contrary, they are complimentary values.

CFE Intervener Motion Record - Supreme Court of Canada The issue in this appeal is whether Ontario Bill 307’s amendments to the Election Finances Act violate the informational element of a citizen’s right to vote under s. 3 of the Charter. Bill 307 re-enacted third-party spending limits that were declared invalid under s. 2(b) of the Charter, and invoked s. 33 to protect those spending limits from Charter review. The question in this appeal is whether limits on third party spending that are unconstitutional under s. 2(b) are also an unjustifiable violation of s. 3 which cannot be overriden by s. 33.

CFE/BCCLA/Animal Justice Intervener Factum - Ontario Court of Appeal - Public Interest Standing

CFE Intervener Factum - Supreme Court of Canada