The Ontario Superior Court of Justice has ruled that the Parliamentary Protective Service violated the Charter rights of Campaign Life Coalition by banning their signs from Parliament Hill during a May 2023 press conference ahead of the annual National March for Life.

On Monday's episode of The Ezra Levant Show, Ezra spoke with Justice Centre constitutional lawyer Hatim Kheir about the three-year legal battle and what the ruling actually means going forward.

The signs in question displayed abortion victim photography. PPS officers inspected them before the event began and prohibited their display, arguing the images were obscene and promoted hatred, but the court disagreed.

Justice Centre lawyer Hatim Kheir explained that the PPS had applied a loose dictionary definition of “obscenity” — something “gross or unpleasant” — rather than the strict Criminal Code definition, which requires a depiction of sex combined with additional aggravating elements.

Go Ad Free

“The judge rejected that finding that that was too subjective of a standard by which to limit freedom of expression,” Kheir said.

The court also rejected the PPS's argument that the signs promoted hatred, and, importantly, ruled that Charter protection for expression does not depend on whether the signs are accurate, persuasive or acceptable to the public.

Ezra noted the win was qualified, however, given the court declined to strike down Parliament Hill's General Rules outright, since the Commission for the Use of Parliament Hill — the body that actually creates those rules — was not a party to the case.

The same rules remain on the books. “A win is a win, and it's much better than a loss,” Ezra said. “But it sounds like the same deciders are in place.”

Kheir said the positive outcome is how the rules must now be interpreted going forward — narrowly and strictly, not as a broad tool to silence groups whose political expression makes authorities uncomfortable.

“Parliament Hill has long been a place where Canadians gather to communicate political messages directly to lawmakers,” read a statement on the case from the Justice Centre. “Constitutional freedoms cannot be restricted through subjective and unpredictable censorship.”