Vriend v. Alberta, [1998] 1 S.C.R.
In 1991, Mr Vriend was dismissed from his place of his employment due to his homosexuality. Mr. Vriend challenged the ruling, however, at the time, the Alberta Human Rights Act included discrimination against race, gender and religion, but not sexual orientation. In 1998, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled in Vriend's favour and sexual orientation was included under discriminated groups in the Alberta Human Rights Act.
The Vriend v. Alberta case is one of the most significant cases relating to legal precedence protecting sexual orientation discrimination in Canadian history. It has been cited in many lawsuits relating to smaller cases and, most importantly, was the foundation on the legalization of same-sex marriage in Canada.
R. v. N.S., 2012 SCC 72, [2012] 3 S.C.R. 726
N.S. was asked to remove her niqab while serving as a witness to another case. She refused, which led to the judge charging her for being in contempt of court. N.S. challenged this ruling and the Supreme Court of Canada decided in her favour, creating legislature that bans judges from demanding individuals remove their religious symbols in court. This became the precedent to the Ishaq v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) case, where courts decided in 2015 that religious expression including symbols are protected by the Charter.
R. v. Keegstra, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 697
Mr. Keegstra was a high school teacher, teaching his students directly anti-Semitic themes and altered history. The Government of Canada took Mr. Keegstra to trial over his violation of hate speech. In 1990, the precedent was set, outlining that teaching information to incite hatred of a religious minority is a violation of the Criminal Code Sect. 219.
Keegstra is one of the most cited cases in Canadian courts as it restructured the way Canadian courts interpreted the law. For the first time, the receiver of the message was considered over the right of the person to deliver the message.
R.A.V. v. St. Paul, 505 U.S. 377, 112 S.Ct. 2538, 120 L.Ed.2d. 305 (1992):
In 1990, a juvenile only referred to as R.A.V. lit fire to a crudely made cross on the lawn of an African American family. The Juvenile was charged with St. Paul, Minnesota's Bias-Motivated Crime Ordinance. Upon appeal at the level of the Supreme Court, the court struck down the law stating that it was overboard, considering it included both hate speech and fighting words plus the judges ruled that the the law was too specific in the groups that were discriminated against. The court did however determine that the burning of a cross was reprehensible and that prosecution of this would be sufficient without including questioning the First Amendment.
R. v. Big M Drug Mart Ltd., [1985] 1 S.C.R. 295
The owner of Big M Drug Mart decided to keep his pharmacy open on Sundays. The city of Calgary charged the owner in violating the resting day laws, relating to Sunday being a Christian day of rest. The owner challenged this and, as a result, the day of rest was removed from legislature. This became the legal precedent of protecting individuals against being forced to follow religious teachings.
Freedom of Association
Freedom of Religious Expression/Association
Hate Speech Violation
Freedom to Protest
Saskatchewan Federation of Labour v. Saskatchewan, 2015 SCC 4, [2015] 1 S.C.R. 245
The government of Saskatchewan introduced 2 new Bills in 2007. The Public Service Essential Services Act, S.S. 2008, c. P-42-2. (PSESA) would limit workers ability to strike and limit bargaining power of unions. The Trade Union Amendment Act, 2008, S.S. 2008, c. 26 (TUA) would make it far more difficult to form unions and change communications between employers and employees. The Saskatchewan Federation of Labour charged the government of Saskatchewan with violating the the Charter s 2(c) freedom to associate and (d) freedom to assemble. TUA was found not in violation of the charter. The decision on PSESA was more of a mixed bag. It was determined that strikes against employers would swing the power dynamics in negotiations too far in the workers favour, and determining the freedom to strike was too political and should fall back on existing legislature, meaning PSESA. That said, they acknowledged that firing or replacing striking employees would negatively effect people based on socio-economic status and outlawed this action.
Incitement of Panic/Violence/Suicide
Freedom of the Press
New York Times Company v. United States, 403 U.S. 713, 91 S.Ct. 2140, 29 L.Ed.2d. 822 (1971):
The New York Times was reporting on the war effort in Vietnam. The events that unfolded during the war became a politically charged topic and the government wanted to mitigate how much information was being given to the public. The New York Times filed a lawsuit against the federal government, accusing the government of limiting Freedom of the Press. The courts ruled in the the New York Times favour, and this became the precedent for allowing journalists and media organizations to report on public matters.
Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell, 485 U.S. 46, 108 S.Ct. 876, 99 L.Ed.2d. 41 (1988)
In the November 1983 issue, Hustler magazine published a parody image of Televangelist Jerry Falwell as an incestuous drunk. Mr. Falwell filed a lawsuit against Hustler for libel. The Supreme Court of America decided quickly in an 8-0 decision in Hustler's favour. This was the precedent set to state that parody and satire are covered under the First Amendment.
Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397, 109 S.Ct. 2533, 105 L.Ed.2d 342 (1989):
In In 1984, Mr Johnson was arrested for violating the prohibition on desecrated the American flag when he burned one during a protest. In a tight decision of 5-4 made by the Supreme Court, it was ruled that desecrating the lag was protected under the First Amendment. Not only did Johnson win the case, but this court decision overturned the laws related to desecration of the flag in 48 or 50 states.
The Flag
Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47,(1919)
During World War I, there was a deep divide in America between those that supported or objected to the war effort. President Wilson had put laws in place that severely prosecuted those who worked against the government. In that time, Mr. Schenk and an associate were making fliers and mailing them to soldiers that had been conscripted. The fliers pleaded with the men not to agree to go to war. Schenk was arrested and charged with dissidence. It was determined that the First Amendment would not protect those that work to create public panic. The court determined that "[t]he most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic. [...] The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent." This case became known as the "can't yell fire in a theatre case".
Hate Speech
Freedom of Religion
Commonwealth v. Michelle Carter, No. 15YO0001NE (2017)
In 2014, Ms. Carter's long distance boyfriend had committed suicide. In the investigation it was found that, over text message, Ms. Carter had been encouraging her boyfriend to commit suicide. In 2017, it was determined that she had indeed assisted in his suicide through encouragement and a lack of dissuasion. Defense tried to argue that previously, Ms. Carter had dissuaded her boyfriend from suicide twice, but after changing her medication, her behaviour changed. Prosecution denied this as defense and maintained that Ms. Carter was attempting to use her boyfriends death to draw in internet popularity and attention. The final decision was based on her lack of dissuasion at the time of death and a lack of notifying authorities or his family after.
West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624, 87 L. Ed. 1628, 63 S. Ct. 1178 (1943)
A young boy that was Jehovah's Witness refused to stand for the Pledge of Allegiance at school. The boy claimed that standing for the Pledge violated his religious freedoms since Jehovah's Witnesses do not recognize the state as a governing body and refuse to salute symbols of it. The court ruled in favour of the Jehovah's Witnesses to observe their faith. This ruling overturned a decision made in 1940 Minersville School District v. Gobitis that suggested Jehovah's Witness should try and fight this democratically.
Concerned Women for America, Inc. v. Lafayette County, 883 F.2d 32 (5th Cir. 1989)
The County library had rooms that it rented out to various organizations. It attempted to prevent the use of the rooms of certain groups, but considering that the room had been rented out to other groups, denying the rental of the room based on their political or religious discussions would be impeding on free speech. The library set out rulings that would limit the time and duration of meetings, but would not be legally allowed to deny the rental of the room based on the content being discussed.
Slander
Awan v. Levant, 2016 ONCA 970 (CanLII)
Ezra Levant was working for Maclean's magazine in 2006 when he wrote an article relating to the Canadian Islamic Center. After Khurrum Awan, along with three other students demanded that Maclean's rebuttle the article. After much discussion over the years, Levant began blogging false information about Awan and his relationship to Islam and the Canadian Islamic Center, all the while consistently questioning Awan's honesty with deliberate malice. These blogs went on for years, so Awan filed for slander. Levant was found guilty of slander in 2016.
The actions of Levant proved that those who use public platforms in an effort to discredit another individual for no reason beyond malice is illegal in Canada. This is not the first time Levant had been prosecuted for slander. As a result, Levant had been black-listed by almost all Canadian media outlets.