The Superior Court of Quebec ruled July 31 that the provincial government violated Harvest Ministries International’s (HMI) Charter rights by ordering the Quebec City Convention Centre (SCCQ) to cancel the Christian group’s “Faith, Freedom, Fire” conference in the summer of 2023.

Judge Alain Trudel ordered former Quebec Minister of Tourism Caroline Proulx, the convention centre and the Attorney General of Quebec to pay the plaintiff $30,636.92, but specified 60-year-old Proulx, who is stepping down from the National Assembly of Quebec following the 2026 election on Oct. 5, “shall bear 100 per cent of the sum.” Additionally, the Coalition Avenir Québec politician is bound to pay $30,000 in her own name.

In his written decision, Trudel concluded that Proulx “arrogated a power to herself and exercised it arbitrarily and abusively, without any regard for the plaintiff’s rights.” He also declared the defendants “impeded both the form of the expression, in order to control dissemination of and access to the plaintiff’s message, and its content. This was a serious violation of the plaintiff’s freedom of expression.”

Advertisement

Proulx ordered the SCCQ to cancel its contract with HMI for a 10-day prayer rally under the rationale it would be an anti-abortion event. HMI launched a $200,000 lawsuit for material and moral damages a little over a month later, claiming the province, the minister and the convention centre violated its Charter rights.

Constitutional lawyer Olivier Seguin, whose legal efforts are financially supported by the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms (JCCF), said “this judgment confirmed that governments cannot use public facilities to punish organizations because officials disagree with their beliefs. The court rightly found that the minister acted without legal authority and violated fundamental freedoms guaranteed by the Charter.”

HMI co-founder Art Lucier proclaimed in an Aug. 1 video message to supporters that “you have to fight for what is right” and he thanked “all who stood and prayed.” He added that this court battle was “not about the money. Whatever money they’re going to give us we lost more for sure.”

This incident began with Proulx reviewing an email from a journalist requesting her reaction to HMI, based in Kelowna, B.C., hosting a large gathering in the SCCQ given the group’s pro-life convictions. She did take note of the section of the website calling for an end to abortion.

Advertisement

Trudel summarized in his written decision that Proulx, “outraged by the substance of the message, which she considered false and contrary to Quebec’s fundamental values, the minister decided to terminate the rental agreement between the SCCQ and HMI for the upcoming event.”

She sought support for her forthcoming action by engaging with executives of various facilities and heard what she needed from Michel Labrecque, the president of Montreal Olympic Park. He told her, as stated in Trudel’s decision, that “he had previously refused to contract with an organization whose message, in his view, undermined respect for women.”

Marie-Christine Fillion, Proulx’s chief of staff from 2022-2024, then moved to direct Pierre-Michel Bouchard, the convention centre’s president and CEO, in writing to terminate the lease agreement, declaring “we firmly believe in freedom of expression, but just as strongly in freedom of choice. We have serious reservations about holding this event in a public venue. Nothing prevents them from holding the event elsewhere, in a private venue.”

A conference expected to draw approximately 1,200 daily participants was thus cancelled, and HMI had to shift gears to a 200-person gathering at another Quebec establishment.

The Catholic Register asked Seguin if Trudel’s decision is potent enough to deter government officials from exerting authority in this fashion. The lawyer suggested the punitive damages levied against Proulx herself should, theoretically, give government officials pause.

“I think that this is very clear — there is no ambiguity,” said Seguin. “Yes, it aimed to deter and then, honestly, we never know. Those (actions) are in big part done for political reasons. Coming from a politician, it may be something that is done because it pays politically, and that is kind of worth it (to them).

Advertisement

“That being said, the legal situation of doing something like this is so clear now that I don’t think it will happen anytime soon. It would be such a frontal violation of the law that a court would (respond) even more severely.”

As for Proulx, she shared her intent to “carefully analyze the decision before determining the next steps” in an X post.