Ontario’s public transit agencies can refuse to run political advertisements if they determine, following careful deliberation, that running those ads could result in discrimination or harassment against vulnerable community members.
In a precedent-setting ruling released today, the Court of Appeal for Ontario upheld the City of Hamilton’s earlier determination to reject an advertising purchase by the Christian Heritage Party (CHP) on gender issues. This marks the first time Ontario’s top court has addressed bus advertising since the landmark 2009 Supreme Court ruling in Greater Vancouver Transportation Authority v. Canadian Federation of Students — British Columbia Component.
The CHP had sought to purchase advertising space on Hamilton’s public transit system for an ad depicting a woman with the captions “Woman:” above and “An Adult Female” below. The ad included the CHP’s website address, which states the party’s platform that there are only two biological sexes and that children “must be protected from the LGBTQ ‘gender agenda.'”
Between the initial advertising purchase request in January 2023 and the final rejection on July 6, 2023, the City repeatedly communicated its concerns to the CHP. The City cited incidents of violence against transgender persons, including an assault on a Hamilton Street Railway bus in the preceding year, and provided academic studies linking negative transgender-related media messages to adverse mental health outcomes.
Ultimately, the City concluded the CHP ad could potentially cause serious psychological harm to transgender HSR passengers and rejected it.
Previous Coverage:
February 3, 2026: Liveposts Replay: Ontario Court of Appeal Hearing – City of Hamilton v. Christian Heritage Party
February 3, 2025: Ontario Court of Appeal Case Could Set Precedent for Political Ads on Public Transit: Arguments Today
November 2024: Divisional Court Rules City of Hamilton’s Rejection of CHP Ad Reasonable
Writing for the unanimous three-judge panel, Justice Lorne Sossin ruled the City’s determination was reasonable because it carefully weighed the CHP’s advertisement against the City’s statutory objective of providing a safe and welcoming transit system while honouring the CHP’s Charter right to free expression.
The City acknowledged that it was required to “honour and carefully consider” s. 2(b) of the Charter in its decision. It noted that s. 2(b) was not meant to protect only “banal or widely accepted” speech and that residents have to put up with some controversy on City buses. It also noted that while the Advertisement conflicted with its own policies, this was not a sufficient reason to reject it. Instead, it had to balance CHP’s interest in freedom of expression against its statutory objective of “providing a safe and welcoming transit system.” – para 11, Christian Heritage Party of Canada v. Hamilton (City) 2026 ONCA 195
In its 74-paragraph ruling, the Court of Appeal confirmed the Divisional Court’s findings that the City met all legal requirements and constitutional standards in rejecting the advertisement.
“The City’s decision is reasoned, fair and balanced with respect to the CHP’s rights and the City’s statutory obligations and policies. It falls within a range of reasonable, acceptable outcomes,” the Divisional Court ruled in November 2024.
Today’s ruling provides greater clarity for government administrative decision makers when weighing Charter free expression rights against the permissibility of political advertising messages on government-provided spaces such as transit buses. It confirms that free expression rights are not absolute and that governments can deny advertisements that undermine important statutory goals.
The Court of Appeal also confirmed that these decisions will be reviewed by courts following the Vavilov standard, the 2019 Supreme Court of Canada decision that establishes the framework for determining whether a decision-maker’s reasons are sound and whether the decision was reasonably available to them.
Reaction to the Decision
The Christian Heritage Party issued a statement shortly after the ruling was released.
Claiming the Court ruled “against free speech,” CHP national leader Rod Taylor stated: “Today, free speech has been given a black eye by judges who neglected to recognize our constitutional rights.”
“We see today that political correctness and ‘woke’ ideology have infected not only our legislatures but also our courts.”
In a video post shortly after the ruling, John Sikkema, lawyer for the intervenor group Association for Reformed Political Action (a conservative advocacy organization), stated: “If there is a silver lining to this decision, it is that the court does not find that the message that women are female by definition is harmful or discriminatory per se.”
“Instead the court relies on what I think is shaky evidence that this advertisement, if allowed on public transit, would cause harm beyond mere offense to transit users who identify as transgender.” Sikkema was referring to the Court’s acceptance of academic literature cited by the City.
Egale, a 2SLGBTQI advocacy organization and intervenor in this case, has not yet issued a statement. The City of Hamilton has also not yet responded to the ruling.
Note: this article will be updated statements from Egale and the City, as well as links to the CanLII version of the ruling once available.
Production Details
v. 1.0.0
Published: March 18, 2026
Last updated: March 18, 2026
Author: Joey Coleman
Update Record
v. 1.0.0 original version