The Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms has released a new report titled Speech on Trial: Censorship by Human Rights Commissions, authored by veteran journalist and public policy analyst Nigel Hannaford and Justice Centre President John Carpay. The report examines how certain sections of provincial human rights legislation that prohibit expression deemed “discriminatory” or likely to expose individuals to “hatred or contempt” are being applied to investigate and penalize lawful speech by Canadians.
According to the report, these provisions allow human rights commissions and tribunals to pursue cases involving expression itself, rather than focusing solely on discriminatory actions or conduct. It argues that this has led to situations where individuals are drawn into lengthy and costly legal proceedings over statements of opinion or belief.
The report further contends that respondents often face significant financial and personal burdens, even when complaints are ultimately dismissed. It raises concerns about procedural fairness, noting that human rights tribunals may not offer the same safeguards typically found in traditional court systems.
Several recent cases are highlighted as examples of how these laws are being applied. In British Columbia, former Chilliwack school trustee Barry Neufeld was ordered by the BC Human Rights Tribunal in February 2026 to pay $750,000 in damages following comments related to Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity (SOGI) policies in schools. In Alberta, business owner Karen Richert is currently facing a complaint related to flyers opposing a proposed rainbow crosswalk in her community. The report also references other cases involving comedy, political commentary, and personal expression.
To address these concerns, the report calls for the repeal of specific provisions in provincial human rights statutes that it says enable the regulation of lawful speech. It identifies the following sections for removal:
Section 7 of British Columbia’s Human Rights Code;
Section 3 of Alberta’s Human Rights Act;
Section 14 of Saskatchewan’s Human Rights Code;
Section 18 of Manitoba’s Human Rights Code;
Section 11 of Quebec’s Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms;
Section 7 of New Brunswick’s Human Rights Act;
Section 5(f) and Section 7 of Nova Scotia’s Human Rights Act;
Section 19 of Newfoundland and Labrador’s Human Rights Act;
Section 12 of Prince Edward Island’s Human Rights Act;
Section 13 of the Northwest Territories’ Human Rights Act.
The report argues that removing these provisions would not weaken core human rights protections. It notes that existing laws against discrimination in employment, housing, and the provision of goods and services would remain intact, as would Criminal Code provisions addressing the wilful promotion of hatred. Instead, it suggests the changes would refocus human rights legislation on its original purpose while strengthening protections for freedom of expression.
Commenting on the issue, co-author Nigel Hannaford said human rights commissions were established to address genuine discrimination, not to regulate lawful opinions or enforce ideological conformity.
He added that when Canadians face prolonged legal proceedings and significant financial consequences for expressing lawful views, many may become discouraged from participating in public discourse.
The Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms describes itself as Canada’s leading civil liberties organization focused on defending Charter rights through the courts and public advocacy. Founded in 2010, the organization states that it relies entirely on voluntary donations and provides official tax receipts to supporters.
