The Ontario Court of Appeal has granted a new trial for Christian activist William Whatcott, who was charged with wilful promotion of hatred after protesting the 2016 Toronto Pride Parade. .“The Court did not adopt the Crown’s argument that criticizing sexual behaviour is the equivalent of advocating for the eradication of a group,” said Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms (JCCF)-funded lawyer Hatim Kheir in a Friday press release. .“We are pleased to see that the Court of Appeal has affirmed the Supreme Court precedent and has not expanded the definition of the offence of promotion of hatred.” .The Ontario Court of Appeal granted the appeal and ordered a new trial on the basis the judge had erred by excluding expert evidence about anti-gay discrimination. It made no comment on whether the standard for promotion of hatred was misconstrued or improperly applied. .Whatcott and five associates marched in the 2016 Toronto Pride Parade disguised as gay zombies, wearing green skin-tight outfits which covered their faces and each in some kind of rainbow accessory. As his associates and him marched, they distributed fliers disguised as condoms which stated gay sex was dangerous and unhealthy. .He was acquitted following a trial in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in 2021. .The Crown appealed the acquittal, arguing the judge misapplied the meaning of hatred and excluded evidence from one of its expert witnesses. It argued for expanding the definition of wilful promotion of hatred to include expressing moral disapproval of certain sexual behaviours. .The JCCF provided counsel to Canadian ministry Free to Care, which defends religious freedom and people’s choices in pursuing the therapy they want. It was granted intervenor status at the Court of Appeal. .Free to Care founder Jojo Ruba said he sought to intervene “because of the potential implications this case could have, both on our work, as well as in the lives of millions of Canadians, including members of the LGBT community, who uphold traditional views on sexuality.” .“Specifically, Free to Care is concerned that the Crown’s arguments would result in criminalizing legitimate conversations that seek to persuade people to change their actions or beliefs,” said Ruba..The appeal was heard by the Court of Appeal in June. Kheir argued the Crown’s argument “risks equivocating advocacy against a practice central to an identifiable group’s identity with advocacy for the eradication of that group.” .“The Court’s decision leaves space for good faith criticism and debate,” he said.
