4 total
Appeal dismissed; City's rejection of political transit advertisement reasonably balanced freedom of expression with safety objectives.
The appellants sought to place a political advertisement on City-owned transit shelters defining a woman as an 'adult female'.
The City rejected the advertisement, concluding it posed a tangible risk to its statutory objective of providing a safe and welcoming transit system, particularly for transgender individuals.
The Divisional Court dismissed the appellants' application for judicial review.
On appeal, the Court of Appeal upheld the Divisional Court's decision, finding that the City's process was procedurally fair and its decision was reasonable under the Doré/Loyola framework, as it appropriately balanced the appellants' freedom of expression with the City's statutory objectives.
The court granted leave to intervene to two organizations and denied two others in a constitutional appeal regarding transit advertising.
This motion concerns applications for leave to intervene as friends of the court in an appeal involving a municipal transit authority's refusal to post a political advertisement.
The motion judge considered four proposed interveners: Egale Canada, Free Speech Union of Canada, Charter Advocates Canada, and Association for Reformed Political Action.
The court applied the established test for intervention in constitutional cases, which is more relaxed than in non-constitutional matters.
The motion judge granted leave to Egale Canada and Association for Reformed Political Action, finding they had distinct perspectives and real, substantial interests in the subject matter.
The motions by Free Speech Union of Canada and Charter Advocates Canada were dismissed as they failed to demonstrate how their participation would assist the court or provide perspectives distinct from the immediate parties.
Judicial review dismissed; City's rejection of political transit advertisement reasonably balanced Charter rights and safety objectives.
The applicants sought judicial review of the City of Hamilton's decision to reject their proposed billboard bus advertisement, which contained messaging regarding biological gender.
The applicants argued the decision was procedurally unfair, unreasonable, and violated their freedom of expression.
The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the City's process was procedurally fair and that its decision proportionately balanced the applicants' Charter rights with the City's statutory objective of providing a safe and welcoming transit system for all, including transgender and gender non-conforming individuals.
The court awarded partial indemnity costs to the defendants and stayed the plaintiff's action until all outstanding costs orders were paid, dismissing the request for personal costs against the plaintiff's former lawyer.
This decision addresses the issue of costs following the striking out of the plaintiff's claim.
The plaintiff sought to have his former lawyer personally pay costs or for no costs to be awarded.
The court dismissed the request for personal costs against the lawyer, finding his conduct did not cause unnecessary costs and did not meet the high threshold for such an order.
The court awarded partial indemnity costs to the defendants and imposed terms requiring the plaintiff to pay all outstanding costs orders (including prior ones) before being permitted to amend his claim, failing which the action would be dismissed.
