Background
Donald Andrews was the leader of a white supremacist political group known as the Nationalist Party of Canada and Robert Smith was the party secretary. Together they were in charge of the party's bi-monthly magazine called the National Reporter which made claims against the Jewish and black peoples. Both Andrews and Smith were charged with "unlawfully communicating statements, other than in private conversation, which willfully promoted hatred against an identifiable group" contrary to s. 319(2) of the Criminal Code.
At trial they were found guilty for promoting hatred. On appeal to the Court of Appeal for Ontario Justice Cory found that section 319(2) violated section 2(b) of the Charter but could be justified under section 1.
The question before the Supreme Court was
- whether s. 319(2) of the Criminal Code violated section 2(b) of the Charter, and if so, whether the violation was justifiable under section 1.
- whether s. 319(3)(a) of the Criminal Code violated section 11(d) of the Charter, and if so, whether the violation was justifiable under section 1.
The court held that section 319(2) and 319(3)(a) violated the Charter but were saved under section 1.
The Nationalist Party of Canada is an unregistered far-right political party in Canada that was founded in 1977 by white supremacist Don Andrews. The purported goals of the party are "the promotion and maintenance of European heritage and culture in Canada", but the party is known for its antisemitic and racist publications.
R v Big M Drug Mart Ltd is a landmark decision by Supreme Court of Canada where the Court struck down the Lord's Day Act for violating section 2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This case had many firsts in constitutional law including being the first to interpret section 2.
R v Morgentaler, [1988] 1 SCR 30 was a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada which held that the abortion provision in the Criminal Code was unconstitutional because it violated women's rights under section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms ("Charter") to security of the person. Since this ruling, there have been no criminal laws regulating abortion in Canada.
James "Jim" Keegstra was a public school teacher and mayor in Eckville, Alberta, Canada, who was charged and convicted of hate speech in 1984. The conviction was overturned by the Court of Appeal of Alberta but reinstated by the Supreme Court of Canada in R v Keegstra. The decision received substantial international attention and became a landmark Canadian legal case upholding the constitutionality of Canada's hate speech laws.
Section 1 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is the section that confirms that the rights listed in the Charter are guaranteed. The section is also known as the reasonable limits clause or limitations clause, as it legally allows the government to limit an individual's Charter rights. This limitation on rights has been used in the last twenty years to prevent a variety of objectionable conduct such as hate speech and obscenity.
R v Martineau, [1990] 2 SCR 633 is a leading Supreme Court of Canada case on the mens rea requirement for murder.
Section 2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms ("Charter") is the section of the Constitution of Canada that lists what the Charter calls "fundamental freedoms" theoretically applying to everyone in Canada, regardless of whether they are a Canadian citizen, or an individual or corporation. These freedoms can be held against actions of all levels of government and are enforceable by the courts. The fundamental freedoms are freedom of expression, freedom of religion, freedom of thought, freedom of belief, freedom of peaceful assembly and freedom of association.
R v Zundel [1992] 2 S.C.R. 731 is a landmark Supreme Court of Canada decision where the Court struck down the provision in the Criminal Code that prohibited publication of false information or news on the basis that it violated the freedom of expression provision under section 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
R v Keegstra, [1990] 3 SCR 697 is a freedom of expression decision of the Supreme Court of Canada where the court upheld the Criminal Code provision prohibiting the wilful promotion of hatred against an identifiable group as constitutional under the freedom of expression provision in section 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It is a companion case to R v Andrews.
R v Chaulk, [1990] 3 SCR 1303 is a leading decision of the Supreme Court of Canada on the interpretation and constitutionality of section 16(4) of the Criminal Code, which provides for a mental disorder defence. Two accused individuals challenged the section as a violation of their right to the presumption of innocence under section 11(d) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms ("Charter"). The Court upheld the section and provided a basis on which to interpret the section.
R v Dyment, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 417 is a leading Supreme Court of Canada decision on the constitutional right to privacy under section 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Borowski v Canada (AG), [1989] 1 S.C.R. 342 is the leading Supreme Court of Canada decision on mootness of an appealed legal issue. The Court declined to decide whether the fetus had a right to life under sections 7 and 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Had they found in favour of Borowski, stricter laws against abortion in Canada would have to have been enacted. Thus, along with the later Supreme Court case Tremblay v Daigle (1989), Borowski "closed off litigation opportunities" by anti-abortion activists.
R v Skinner, [1990] 1 SCR 1235, is a leading constitutional decision of the Supreme Court of Canada on the freedom of expression under section 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms ("Charter").
Reference re ss. 193 & 195.1(1)(c) of Criminal Code (Canada),, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 1123 is a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada on the right to freedom of expression under section 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and on prostitution in Canada. Nova Scotia's Appeal Court had ruled the legislation violated the guarantee of freedom of expression in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, by constraining communication in relation to legal activity. The case was referred to the Supreme court.
R v Lucas is the leading Supreme Court of Canada decision on the criminal offence of defamatory libel. The Court held that the Criminal Code offence of defamatory libel infringed the constitutional protection of freedom of expression under Section 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, but the offence was a reasonable limit prescribed by law under Section 1 of the Charter.
R v Pan; R v Sawyer, [2001] 2 S.C.R. 344 is a Supreme Court of Canada decision on the criminal jury trial system. The Court held that rules against admitting evidence indicating the decision-making process of a jury were constitutional.
R v Wigglesworth, [1987] 2 S.C.R. 541 is a leading Supreme Court of Canada decision on the constitutional right against double jeopardy under Section 11(h) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Court gave a two-part test to determine whether a proceeding deals with a criminal matter.
R v Hess; R v Nguyen, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 906 is a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada where the Court struck down part of the Criminal Code offence of rape as a violation of section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Hate speech laws in Canada include provisions in the federal Criminal Code and in some other federal legislation. There are also statutory provisions relating to hate publications in some, but not all, of the provinces and territories.
The passage of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms in 1982 allowed for the provision of challenging the constitutionality of laws governing prostitution law in Canada in addition to interpretative case law. Other legal proceedings have dealt with ultra vires issues. In 2013, three provisions of the current law were overturned by the Supreme Court of Canada, with a twelve-month stay of effect. In June 2014, the Government introduced amending legislation in response.
