The Ontario Court of Appeal has agreed to hear an appeal from the Christian Heritage Party of Canada in a case against the City of Hamilton for refusing to accept a bus advertisement from the party in 2023.

Jim Enos, CEO of the CHP Hamilton Mountain electoral district association, says the decision is a step in the right direction toward ensuring the right to free speech.

“We are very confident in the case, and the fact that (the court) is even willing to listen to the appeal says there must be something wrong,” he said. “While we can't say what the outcome will be, doing nothing usually gets you nothing. We don't want to lose by default. I would rather go down fighting than by forfeit.” 

Advertisement

The appeal stems from the CHP's legal action against the City of Hamilton for rejecting the ad in July 2023. The advertisement, intended for a bus shelter, depicted a smiling woman above the words “Woman: An Adult Female.”

In its rejection letter, the city acknowledged CHP’s Charter right to free speech, but said the message supported “a traditional and biologically determined definition of gender in line with conservative values” as grounds for concern. 

“Their reasoning at the time was that it went against the advertising codes, but the advertising codes don't apply to federal political parties, and they know that,” Enos said. 

Advertisement

“In July of that year, they got back to us and they said they were not going to put the advertisement up. In the letter they sent, they talk about recognizing that (the ad) portrays a common definition found in most dictionaries, so what is the problem?” 

The letter added that after consulting local LGBT groups and an LGBT-sponsored health publication about the effect of negative advertising on transgendered people, the city determined there was a risk a transgendered person might feel unsafe using public transportation due to the ad. 

The Ontario Divisional Court of the Superior Court of Justice denied CHP’s contention in late 2024, in an 3-0 judges vote, ruling the rejection did not violate CHP’s right to express its political beliefs and that the process by which the City of Hamilton based its rejection was not administratively unfair. 

Enos says the decision and the impending appeal are a situation bigger than a mere advertising fight for the party, but something all of Canada should pay attention to closely. 

“We are to the point now where we can't even express biological truth without being censored. It would be a very bad precedent moving forward for everybody in Canada. The party is one thing, but for Canada as a whole, we couldn't stand back and let that ruling slide by.”

The Christian Heritage Party was supported by the Acacia Group, an Ottawa-based law firm specializing in the defence of churches and charities from Charter abuses and government overreach.

Advertisement

Lead lawyer Lia Milousis applauded the Appeal Court’s decision as a “first step to restoring Charter-guaranteed freedom of speech for the CHP,” citing its right to express itself politically within the bounds of Canadian law.

“It’s not for a municipal government to dictate what can and cannot be part of democratic dialogue or what people can and cannot be exposed to in terms of free expression. The City of Hamilton is trying to prevent its residents from being exposed to a view that it says is unacceptable, but it’s not allowed to censor the views and pick and choose what Hamiltonians can and cannot hear, can and cannot know, can and cannot be exposed to,” she said.