An Ontario court has ruled that officials on Parliament Hill violated the constitutional rights of a pro-life organization by preventing it from displaying anti-abortion signs during a 2023 event in Ottawa.In a decision released Thursday, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice found the Parliamentary Protective Service (PPS) breached the Charter right to freedom of expression of Campaign Life Coalition and one of its members when officers barred the display of signs depicting fetal remains ahead of the annual National March for Life.The court concluded the restriction violated Section 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and could not be justified under Section 1.The dispute stemmed from a May 2023 press conference organized by Campaign Life Coalition on Parliament Hill before the group's annual march.According to court documents, PPS officers inspected signs intended for the event and prohibited their display, arguing the images were too graphic and violated Parliament Hill rules governing demonstrations.Campaign Life Coalition and an individual participant challenged both the decision and the rules used to justify it.In its ruling, the court emphasized the importance of freedom of expression in a democratic society and found the protective service acted unreasonably by relying on broad and subjective restrictions involving signs deemed "obscene" or promoting "hate or violence.".The court noted that while demonstrations on Parliament Hill may be subject to reasonable restrictions, constitutional protections remain in force, particularly for political expression directed at lawmakers and the public.The judge also rejected arguments suggesting Charter protection depends on whether a message is considered accurate, persuasive or acceptable to the public."Parliament Hill has long been a place where Canadians gather to communicate political messages directly to lawmakers and to the public," said Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms constitutional lawyer Hatim Kheir."We are pleased that the court recognized that constitutional freedoms cannot be restricted through subjective and unpredictable censorship."While the court declared the applicants' Charter rights had been violated, it stopped short of striking down Parliament Hill's General Rules or a newer prohibition on signs displaying explicit graphic violence or blood.The judge ruled those broader constitutional questions could not be properly decided because the entities responsible for creating and administering the rules were not parties to the case.The Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms, which supported the legal challenge, said lawyers are reviewing the ruling and considering possible next steps regarding issues left unresolved by the decision.
