2 total
Charter challenge to Niagara Parks regulation prohibiting abusive language dismissed; restriction justified under section 1.
The applicant sought declarations that a regulation prohibiting abusive or insulting language in Niagara Parks infringed his freedom of expression under the Charter, after he was charged for swearing at police officers while holding a profane political sign.
The court held that the regulation was not vague or overbroad, and that given the historical and actual function of the park as a natural and tourist attraction, abusive language was likely not protected speech.
Alternatively, any infringement was justified under section 1 of the Charter.
The application was dismissed in its entirety.
Statement of claim struck for disclosing no reasonable cause of action.
The defendants brought a motion under Rule 21 of the Rules of Civil Procedure seeking to strike the statement of claim for disclosing no reasonable cause of action.
The self‑represented plaintiff had served multiple unfiled amended versions of the claim and acknowledged numerous errors in the pleading.
The court held that the allegations disclosed no viable legal claim, including allegations relating to an estate while the parents were still alive, property interests not held by the plaintiff, and unsupported allegations of defamation.
The court also found that the proceeding appeared motivated by the plaintiff’s personal interest in his parents’ property and that the proper process for capacity concerns would be an application under the Substitute Decisions Act or the Health Care Consent Act.
The statement of claim was struck without leave to amend and full indemnity costs were ordered against the plaintiff.
