The Court of Appeal for Ontario began heard oral arguments in a case that could define the limits of free expression on government-provided advertising platforms across the province.
The Christian Heritage Party (CHP) is appealing a 2024 Divisional Court ruling that upheld the City of Hamilton’s refusal to permit a bus shelter advertisement. While the CHP argues the City violated its Charter rights, the City maintains the refusal was a reasonable measure to ensure the transit system remains safe and welcoming for transgender and non-gender-conforming individuals.
The case addresses how municipalities must balance section 2 Charter protections for political speech against statutory obligations to provide inclusive public services. With legal intervenors Egale and ARPA Canada providing opposing arguments on gender expression, the Court of Appeal has the opportunity to set a clear province-wide precedent for the first time in over fifteen years.
The following is a replay of live updates posted to Bluesky during the arguments.
LivePosts
10:00 AM: Good morning, I’m at Osgoode Hall in Toronto for today’s Court of Appeal for Ontario hearing in CHP v. City of Hamilton. Could be a significant precedent case, if ONCA chooses to set a framework for free expression on government-provided ad spaces. #HamOnt Live posts follow. My preview story: https://thepublicrecord.ca/2026/02/ontario-court-of-appeal-case-could-set-precedent-for-political-ads-on-public-transit-arguments-today/
10:02 AM: Today’s hearing was scheduled to begin at 10 a.m., delayed until 10:30 a.m. The Court of Appeal is presently conducting civil status hearings in this Courtroom. #yhmcc [Using this Hamilton City Council hashtag today.]
10:26 AM: Civil status court is ongoing, I expect a further delay beyond 10:30 a.m.
10:38 AM: Civil Status is complete. Standby for the beginning of today’s hearing in the matter of Christian Heritage Party v. City of Hamilton. #yhmcc
10:46 AM: Today’s Court of Appeal is Justice Lorne Sossin, Justice Jill Copeland, Justice Lene Madsen. During the morning session (now until approx. 1230pm) the Court will hear from appellant CHP and intervenor ARPA. #yhmcc
10:48 AM: Christian Heritage Party lawyers open by stating the prohibiting of their gender expression issues strikes against the heart of free expression. Emphasising that CHP is a registered political party and the ad is political expression. #yhmcc
10:50 AM: CHP lawyers state they will argue Loyola/Dore, free expression, procedural fairness concerns in how the City denied the ad – especially the City’s consultation with third-parties [LGBTQ+ community, committee]. #yhmcc
10:52 AM: CHP mentions Section 2(a) of the Charter as one of the grounds that it believes relevant to the matter. Justice Jill Copeland quickly interjects to note 2(a) was not included in the notice. CHP notes it is referenced in regards to the broader issue. [It is not a focused ground of appeal] #yhmcc
10:54 AM: CHP now arguing the City of Hamilton did not properly follow the Doré-Loyola Framework. Reference for further reading. https://www.constitutionalstudies.ca/2023/10/dore-loyola-framework/
10:58 AM: Justice Lorne Sossin asks CHP lawyer to clarify their submission on the Doré-Loyola Framework in regards to citing the 2018 CHP v City of Hamilton decision. Response is the procedural fairness and Charter Section 1 tests are intertwined. The City should’ve known this from 2018 decision. #yhmcc
11:04 AM: CHP now argues the City [government] cannot cite ‘hypothetical’ harms without considering the harm to those whose free expression is restricted. #yhmcc
11:04 AM: Justice Lorne Sossin asks questions regarding if the decision was a ‘zero sum’ decision, the City had to pick a side. The response from CHP lawyers is that City did not consider alternatives. Example given is a disclaimer could be added to the ad. City did not consider options. #yhmcc
11:04 AM: Justice Jill Copeland asks questions regarding the nature of a transit system – that some people have no option but to use transit, and thus be exposed to messages. Does this differ from open spaces such as a town square, university green space? #yhmcc
11:08 AM: CHP lawyer argues the City did not significantly balance the rights of CHP to expression with City’s position on safe and welcoming space in the transit. CHP argues the City did not sufficiently engage with free expression case law. That the City did not discuss the matter as political speech. #yhmcc
11:12 AM: Justice Copeland notes the City’s decision acknowledges it is political speech, City decision acknowledges political speech cannot be rejected solely because some people do not like it. CHP lawyer clarifies their argument is the City did not acknowledge political speech has great protections. #yhmcc
11:18 AM: Justice Sossin asks if a message was determined to be a ‘dog whistle’, would it have less protection as political speech. CHP lawyers note the City did not refer to the 2023 ad as such, and thus the issue of ‘dog whistles’ need not be dealt with today. #yhmcc
11:22 AM: Arguments are now focused on Ward v. Quebec. CHP noting that even with the circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court upheld the free expression right of Ward, even in light of his mocking a well-known teen singer with a disability. #yhmcc
11:22 AM: Justice Copeland notes the City is not restricting CHP from expressing its gender views in a public square, handing out material. It is only rejecting a bus advertisement. #yhmcc
11:29 AM: CHP is providing overview of established case law on free expression – the rights of those expressing and those hearing the expression. #yhmcc
11:47 AM: CHP is arguing its ad does not misgender anyone, does not make any negative statements about anyone, and the City does not explain the connection it makes between the ad and hate crimes in Hamilton. The City adding hate crime data is not relevant to the ad, the City’s reasons are not robust. #yhmcc
11:48 AM: CHP is now turning its arguments to procedural fairness concerns.
11:53 AM: Justice Sossin is noting the record shows the City and CHP exchange emails and have discussions before the City’s final decision to not permit the CHP ‘Woman: An Adult Female’ ad. CHP lawyer notes the City only engaged following CHP asking questions. #yhmcc
12:00 PM: CHP lawyers says the ad, a dictionary definition of woman, was a religious political party seeking to express its view, there is no call for discrimination, violence, or harm. That this is a Section 2(b) Charter Rights issue. #yhmcc
12:06 PM: There was an exchange regarding the nature of the City’s engagement with CHP during the 2023 decision. CHP lawyers close by quoting Thomas Emerson as cited in Irwin Toy. #yhmcc
12:08 PM: Now there is 15-minutes scheduled for oral submissions by intervenor party Association for Reformed Political Action (ARPA) Canada. In-house counsel John Sikkema making argument. #yhmcc ARPA posted its factum here: https://arpacanada.ca/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/CHP-v.-Hamilton-ARPA-Canada-Factum.pdf
12:09 PM: ARPA arguing broader freedom of expression issues. Noting a distinction between subjectively discriminatory (in the eyes of some) versus legally discriminatory. #yhmcc
12:19 PM: Justice Copeland asked a question to ARPA regarding the difference between a potentially discriminatory message in a workplace and a public place. ARPA responds bus advertising is a public forum, not a workplace. Discussion of balancing and reasonable restrictions.
12:26 PM: The morning session is complete. Recess for lunch until 1:30 p.m. #yhmcc [Shortened to catch up due to late start]
1:34 PM: Good afternoon. I am in Courtroom #7 at Osgoode Hall where Court of Appeal hearing in CHP v. City of Hamilton is resuming after a lunch break. The City of Hamilton will argue to uphold its decision and the Divisional Court decision. Following the City, intervenor Egale will have 15 mins. #yhmcc
1:37 PM: Lawyers for the City of Hamilton open by arguing that under the standards set by the Supreme Court of Canada (most recently Vavilov) state the courts should not intervene in administrative decision, save and except for errors in law or unreasonable decisions not available from the facts. #yhmcc
1:40 PM: Lawyers for the City emphasising the precedents, and the limited role of the courts in judicial review of administrative decisions. #yhmcc
1:43 PM: Lawyer for the City states that the ONCA overturning the Divisional Court would be contrary to established law, and would become a reviewable error that would be subject to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada. #yhmcc
1:43 PM: Justice Sossin asks if the Court of Appeal accepts CHP’s argument that the City did not give reasonable consideration of the impacts of denying the ad upon CHP’s members, would that be an error by City? City lawyer responds that it is clear from the overall reasons was considerate of issues. #yhmcc
1:47 PM: Justice Copeland asks if the City considers communications with Christian Heritage Party in advance of the formal decision constitute part of the decision. City lawyer says yes, and emphasised the City was careful and considered the issues. #yhmcc
1:47 PM: Justice Sossin asks questions regarding the City’s communication – that they do not state the City is asking for CHP’s views on the broader issues. City lawyer agrees the City did not explicitly state this, adds CHP lawyers are experienced, have been in front of the Supreme Court. #yhmcc
1:51 PM: City lawyer arguing their evidence in the record that support the decision determining the CHP ‘Woman ad’ would undermine the City’s goal of having a safe and welcoming transit environment. #yhmcc
1:53 PM: City lawyer now discussing the Ontario Human Rights Code protections for transgender persons, and discrimination that transgender persons face in society. #yhmcc
1:58 PM: City reading from its evidence of concerns from Hamilton’s transgender community that the CHP message ‘Woman: an adult female’ questions their very existence, that it is read as excluding those not assigned as female at birth. #yhmcc
2:01 PM: City now discussing court rulings that have upheld similar restrictions on expression regarding gender transgender issues have been upheld as reasonable. That City’s decision is reasonable and should continue to be upheld. #yhmcc
2:01 PM: Justice Sossin: Did the City find the ad was discriminatory under the Human Rights Code to justify the decision under Section 1 of the Charter? City lawyer: The City did not, but did find the ad potentially discriminatory, they thought about this at length. #yhmcc
2:03 PM: City is now speaking about the content of the CHP’s website on gender issues, and how the City reviewed the website in making its decision regarding the intent of the ‘Woman: an Adult Female’ ad. #yhmcc
2:08 PM: Justice Sossin asks the City response to CHP’s Section 2(a) freedom of religion arguments. City response is the arguments were only raised at today’s appeal hearing, not earlier, and should not be considered.
2:10 PM: City is now showing the academic literature regarding the vulnerability of the transgender community that formed part of the City’s decision making. Emphasising the mental health challenges of the transgender community in that literature justifies the City’s rejection of the CHP ad. #yhmcc
2:15 PM: The City now explaining why it determined the CHP ad could create a hostile environment for transgender people using transit, and the impacts of people avoiding transit to avoid this hostility is important, impacts severe, and the City chose a ‘safe, respectful, and safe environment’. #yhmcc
2:17 PM: City’s lawyer restates the Vavilov standard – that the Court of Appeal must conclude the decision was unreasonable and not available to the City of Hamilton. Emphasising the City met the tests of Vavilov. #yhmcc
2:20 PM: Justice Sossin asks for the City’s lawyers thoughts on adding a disclaimer statement on the ad, something that Guelph did with controversial ads and something the CHP argued this morning. City response: the harms of the ad would remain, and there was no middle-ground on this issue. #yhmcc
2:22 PM: The second City lawyer is now arguing regarding accusations of bias and concerns regarding procedural failure. “CHP had every opportunity” and the CHP’s lawyers are experienced, have been to the Supreme Court of Canada on issues – they knew how to raise issues in communication with the City. #yhmcc
2:27 PM: Justice Sossin asks the City lawyer to explain decision making in regards to CHP’s position that as a registered party expressing its political position on a political issue. Question is to confirm if the City responded to this, mindful of this position from CHP. #yhmcc
2:28 PM: Justice Sossin asking question regarding if it was clear to CHP that the email exchanges were their opportunity to formally make submissions regarding the issue during the City’s decision making.
2:34 PM: Egale is now up for its 15 minute intervenor submission.
2:56 PM: Egale’s statements are complete. CHP has ten minutes for reply. #yhmcc
3:04 PM: There has been some back and forth with the justices. I’ll include some of this in the full article with the benefit of space for context.
3:08 PM: Both the City and CHP have agreed to $36,500 in costs for the Court of Appeal matter. If CHP is successful, then the Divisional Court costs will be flipped. Justice Sossin expresses thanks there is agreement on costs. And the hearing is complete. #yhmcc #HamOnt
Production Details
v. 1.0.0
Published: February 19, 2026
Last updated: February 19, 2026
Author: Joey Coleman
Update Record
v. 1.0.0 original version