3 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.
Divorce severed and granted immediately due to applicant's terminal illness; supplementary death benefit secured for child support.
The applicant, who was terminally ill with ALS, brought a motion to sever the divorce from corollary relief and grant an immediate divorce to maximize pension survivor benefits for his children.
The respondent agreed to the divorce but sought security for outstanding and future child support, as the applicant had cancelled his life insurance contrary to their separation agreement.
The court granted the severance and immediate divorce, finding that the pension survivor benefits constituted reasonable arrangements for child support.
The court also ordered the applicant to temporarily designate the respondent as the beneficiary of his supplementary death benefit in trust to secure any outstanding child support obligations.
