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.
