Charter
Freedom of Expression — From Ford to Keegstra
Section 2(b) protects expression conveying meaning, with violent-form exception.
Section 2(b) protects all expression that conveys or attempts to convey meaning, with violent forms excluded. Ford v Quebec (1988) confirmed protection of commercial expression. Keegstra (1990) addressed hate speech, holding the criminal prohibition justified under s.1 despite engaging s.2(b).
The Canadian approach is more permissive of expression regulation than US First-Amendment doctrine — see Hill v Church of Scientology (1995) declining to import the Sullivan actual-malice rule.
Key principles
- All meaning-conveying expressionSubject only to violent-form exception.
- Commercial expression protectedFord v Quebec.
- Hate speech can be prohibitedKeegstra upholds s.319(2) under s.1 despite engaging s.2(b).
- No transplant of SullivanHill v Scientology rejects US actual-malice rule.
Cases (12)
R. v. Stairs
landmark2022 SCC 11
Supreme Court of Canada· 2022· Charter
R. v. Le
landmark2019 SCC 34
Supreme Court of Canada· 2019· Charter
R. v. Jordan
landmark2016 SCC 27
Supreme Court of Canada· 2016· Charter
Loyola High School v. Quebec (Attorney General)
landmark2015 SCC 12
Supreme Court of Canada· 2015· Charter
Mounted Police Association of Ontario v. Canada (Attorney General)
landmark2015 SCC 1
Supreme Court of Canada· 2015· Charter
R. v. Conception
landmark2014 SCC 60
Supreme Court of Canada· 2014· Charter
Doré v. Barreau du Québec
landmark2012 SCC 12
Supreme Court of Canada· 2012· Charter
R. v. N.S.
landmark2012 SCC 72
Supreme Court of Canada· 2012· Charter
R. v. Grant
landmark2009 SCC 32
Supreme Court of Canada· 2009· Charter
Multani v Commission scolaire Marguerite-Bourgeoys
landmark[2006] 1 SCR 256
Supreme Court of Canada· 2006· Charter
R. v. Mann
landmark2004 SCC 52
Supreme Court of Canada· 2004· Charter
Reference re Same-Sex Marriage
landmark2004 SCC 79
Supreme Court of Canada· 2004· Charter