The Court of Appeal for Ontario heard oral arguments yesterday in a case that could define the limits of free expression on government-provided advertising platforms across the province. The Christian Heritage Party of Canada (CHP) is appealing a 2024 Divisional Court ruling that upheld the City of Hamilton’s refusal to permit a bus shelter advertisement. The 2023 advertisement featured a photo of a young woman with the text “Woman: An Adult Female” and the tagline, “Bringing Respect for Life and Truth to Canadian Politics”.

The hearing before Justices Lorne Sossin, Jill Copeland, and Lene Madsen focused on whether the City properly balanced Section 2(b) Charter protections for political speech against its statutory obligations to provide inclusive public services. While the CHP argued the City failed to engage with free expression case law or consider alternatives like disclaimers, the City maintained that the advertisement potentially undermined a “safe and welcoming” transit environment for transgender and non-binary individuals.

Morning Session: CHP and ARPA Submissions

The morning session was dedicated to the appellant, CHP, and the intervenor, the Association for Reformed Political Action (ARPA) Canada. CHP lawyers opened by stating that prohibiting their gender expression issues strikes at the heart of free expression, emphasizing that as a registered political party, the advertisement constitutes political expression entitled to high protection.

CHP argued that the City of Hamilton failed to properly follow the Doré-Loyola framework for balancing Charter rights. Specifically, they contended the City relied on “hypothetical” harms and did not consider a “middle ground,” such as adding a disclaimer to the advertisement as other municipalities have done. Justice Sossin questioned if the decision was “zero-sum,” while Justice Copeland noted that transit users are a “captive audience” who may have no option but to be exposed to such messages.

ARPA Canada, granted intervenor status alongside Egale Canada, argued broader freedom of expression issues. ARPA’s counsel suggested a distinction between messaging that is “subjectively discriminatory” in the eyes of some versus what is “legally discriminatory,” arguing that a public transit system is a public forum rather than a workplace.

Afternoon Session: City of Hamilton and Egale Submissions

The City of Hamilton’s legal team argued that the court’s role in a judicial review is limited. Under the Vavilov standard, they stated the court should only intervene if the City’s decision was unreasonable or contained errors in law. The City emphasized that its decision followed extensive consultation with the LGBTQ+ community and a review of academic literature regarding the mental health impacts of exclusionary messaging on transgender persons.

Justice Sossin asked if the City found the advertisement to be discriminatory under the Human Rights Code to justify the decision under Section 1 of the Charter. The City’s lawyer responded that while they did not formally find it discriminatory, they found it “potentially discriminatory” after a lengthy consideration. The City maintained that the CHP’s message questioned the existence of transgender persons, creating a hostile environment that could lead marginalized residents to avoid using public transit.

The intervenor Egale Canada argued that the City’s decision was a reasonable measure to protect vulnerable groups from systemic disadvantage and harm. Egale emphasized that the “Woman: An Adult Female” message is read by the transgender community as an exclusionary statement that denies their identity.

Conclusion and Next Steps

The hearing concluded after a brief reply from the CHP. Both parties agreed to $36,500 in costs for the Court of Appeal matter. If the CHP is successful, the previous Divisional Court costs will be reversed. Justice Sossin thanked the parties for their arguments and for reaching an agreement on costs before the court took the matter under advisement. A written ruling is expected later this year.

Production Details
v. 1.0.0
Published: February 4, 2026
Last updated: February, 2026
Author: Joey Coleman

Update Record
v. 1.0.0 original version