Appeal Date Set for Christian Heritage Case
The Ontario Court of Appeal has set the date of Feb. 3, 2026, for The Acacia Group to defend the Charter-protected rights of a federally registered political party.
“It will be left up to us on Feb. 3 to persuade the court that not only should they be raising their eyebrows at the divisional court’s decision, that they should in fact be concerned and intervene because the errors made by the divisional court were significant and will have an impact on future cases,” says Acacia’s Lia Milousis.
“The democracy we’re premised on, the society we’re premised on, is the idea that ideas are put forward and may the best idea win. If someone has a belief they hope will lead to a better society, they’re entitled to advocate for it. The democratic system cannot function if specific beliefs that aren’t inflammatory or graphic are prevented from even seeing the light of day,” she adds.
At the centre of the judicial review application in question is a bus shelter advertisement the Christian Heritage Party sought to put up in Hamilton. The ad showed a smiling woman above the words “Woman: an adult female.” City administrators refused the poster after a consultation that included local LGBT activists but not the CHP.
The CHP went to court to overturn the ban, arguing it had the right as a registered political party to engage in debate on such an important social issue. An Ontario divisional court judge upheld the City’s ban on the advertisement, but the party was granted leave earlier this summer to appeal that decision.
Acacia, acting for the CHP, is asking the Appeal Court to overturn the divisional court ruling and either order the City of Hamilton to publish the ad or give the City legal guidance on proper procedural fairness in dealing with the request.
Milousis emphasizes there is no way to predict how the Court will rule after it hears arguments in February, but says its willingness to do so is significant in itself.
“The Ontario Court of Appeal will only grant leave where there is actually a legitimate discussion, where a legitimate question will be raised. People lose appeals all the time, but it does mean there is something about the decision at the lower court, or something about our argument, that raises concern for the Appeal Court justices,” she says.
A preliminary decision will be made on September 24 to either grant or deny intervenor status in the case to the Association for Reformed Political Action (ARPA), Equality for Gays and Lesbians Everywhere (EGALE), and Charter Advocates Canada. Confirmation of an application by the Free Speech Union of Canada was pending as of September 3.
Milousis concurs that it is curious some noteworthy civil liberties groups have not asked to intervene on behalf of the Charter issues raised by the appeal.
“It would be reasonable to expect a group like the Canadian Civil Liberties Association or the B.C. Civil Liberties Association to intervene. It’s possible they are holding off until a later stage to see what the Ontario Court of Appeal decides. But I also think there is, unfortunately, not always an even-handed approach in civil liberties groups (which are) at times a little slower on the draw to defend speech that is considered more conservative and doesn’t reflect the progressive values those groups have.”
However, Milousis stresses that the arguments Acacia will present, despite them being centred on the politics around a registered political party, will focus on the divisional court’s application of the law and interpretation of the facts of the case.
“One of the things we’ve flagged is that (the divisional court) didn’t rely on any case law. That would violate, if the court accepts our arguments, stare decisis, the legal principle that requires lower courts to adhere to binding decisions from higher courts. The question is whether the divisional court correctly applied the relevant legal analysis from the Doré and Loyola cases. We know they identified the correct test. We say they didn’t correctly apply it.”
At its core, Milousis adds, the appeal for judicial review is about whether the City of Hamilton correctly balanced “all of the Charter rights” of the Christian Heritage Party in refusing the bus advertisement.
“The divisional court identified freedom of expression and freedom of speech, but it did not identify freedom of religion. And this is the Christian Heritage Party of Canada. So, we say there were freedom of religion considerations that should have weighed into the divisional court’s decision. Other Charter rights and Charter values should have been weighed as well, including equality rights.”
Those rights must be safeguarded for the good of all Canadians, including federally registered political parties engaged in legal political speech, she says.
“There wasn’t anything specific about the ad that was concerning. It was the idea itself. It was the nature of the belief that the City opposed and therefore pre-emptively censored. That is problematic.”
Peter Stockland leads the Strategic Communications division at The Acacia Group and is the author of The Acacia Arc newsletter. He has decades of experience as a Canadian journalist, including as editor-in-chief of the Montreal Gazette, editorial page editor of the Calgary Herald, vice-president of English language magazines for Reader’s Digest Canada, and Publisher of the Catholic Register. Peter also enjoys writing short-stories and other fiction, which have been featured in numerous publications across Canada.