Blog

CALGARY – The Canadian Constitution Foundation will appear in court on Friday as an intervenor in the appeal of R v Heather, a case challenging the constitutionality of Calgary’s Safe and Inclusive Access Bylaw. 

In November 2024, Calgary resident Larry Heather was convicted under the Bylaw for protesting a “Reading with Royalty” drag queen storytime event outside the Calgary Central Library in April 2023. The Bylaw bans expression of disapproval related to fifteen human rights categories (such as race, religious beliefs, and gender identity) within 100 metres of libraries and recreation centres, creating what the CCF argues is an unconstitutional “bubble zone” around these public facilities.

The appeal of Heather’s conviction raises fundamental questions about freedom of expression under section 2(b) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The CCF will argue the Bylaw imposes a content-based restriction on expression, requiring the highest level of legal justification. The CCF believes that Calgary’s lawmakers have not shown that such a broad ban is necessary.

The CCF’s intervention will also note that narrower, more targeted measures were available to the City. By prohibiting peaceful protest in key public spaces, the Bylaw risks silencing dissent where it is most likely to be effective.

Josh Dehaas, Counsel for the CCF, emphasized that it is not the job of governments to decide which ideas ought to be shared or silenced in public.

“This bylaw bans a very broad array of protected speech that many people find offensive but that is nonetheless protected in a free society,” Dehaas explained. “The whole point of protecting freedom of expression under our constitution is to allow us to debate controversial ideas without government censorship.”

The hearing can be viewed virtually at 10 a.m. MT at this Webex link on December 5. (Reminder: Broadcasting or recording the virtual courtroom is forbidden.)

Christine Van Geyn, Litigation Director for the CCF, said the Supreme Court has long held that content-based restrictions on speech are unconstitutional.

“Meaningful dialogue requires the opportunity to reach one’s intended audience and the City’s restrictions undermine this core principle,” said Van Geyn. “Laws that target particular subjects face the toughest legal scrutiny in the courts. They must address a real problem, do so in the least restrictive way, and have benefits that outweigh harms. Calgary’s Bylaw fails this test and we look forward to demonstrating that.”

In June, Calgary’s Safe and Inclusive Access Bylaw was named Canada’s Most Censorious Bylaw by the CCF, earning the first-ever Municipal Muzzle Award after an extensive review of bylaws from more than 80 municipalities across the nation. The full report is available for free download here.

The CCF will be represented in this case by Calgary-based criminal defence attorney Yoav Niv.