Canadian Constitution Foundation Launches First Legal Challenge Under Censorship Defence Fund
In a significant move to defend free expression, the Canadian Constitution Foundation (CCF) has filed its first legal challenge under its newly established Censorship Defence Fund. The case targets a municipal policy in Niagara Falls, Ontario, stemming from a contentious incident during a city council meeting on June 17, 2025.
During the meeting, a group of women from the advocacy organization Women of Ontario Say No (WOSN) staged a silent protest after being denied the opportunity to speak as a delegation. The women, who were advocating for greater accountability from local officials facing criminal charges, sat quietly with small paper signs in their laps bearing the phrase “The Women of Ontario Say No.”
Mayor James Diodati responded by invoking the city’s Decorum Policy for Public Meetings, which prohibits all signs and “symbolic materials” in council chambers. Despite the peaceful nature of the protest, the mayor refused to begin the meeting until the women removed their signs. When they declined, police were summoned, resulting in the arrest of three demonstrators, including lead applicant Lauren O’Connor, on trespassing charges.
Representing the women is Kristopher Kinsinger of SV Law, acting on behalf of the CCF. The Calgary-based non-profit, dedicated to defending constitutional rights and civil liberties, had initially attempted to resolve the issue amicably. Prior to filing the lawsuit, the CCF wrote to city officials, urging them to rescind the sign ban policy. However, the City of Niagara Falls stood by its policy, arguing it was necessary for health and safety reasons.
Christine Van Geyn, the CCF’s litigation director, called the events “an outrageous” affront to free expression. “The women were neither disruptive nor disorderly,” she emphasized. “They were chastised for holding paper, and then arrested for quietly expressing their views. That is not how a democratic government should treat the voices of its citizens.”
Van Geyn and other CCF representatives have highlighted the case as part of a troubling trend: local governments imposing overly broad or unconstitutional restrictions on free speech in public spaces. The Niagara Falls case marks the first legal action supported by the Municipal Censorship Defence Fund, an initiative launched by the CCF in 2025 to challenge such policies at the municipal level.
The Fund, backed by donors who are currently matching contributions up to $50,000, aims to set a precedent that could roll back similar policies across Canada. For the CCF, this case is not just about defending the rights of the women involved—it’s about safeguarding free expression for all Canadians.
Niagara Falls Case Highlights Broader Issues of Municipal Censorship
The legal challenge marks a significant step in the CCF’s efforts to combat what it describes as a growing trend of municipal governments imposing unconstitutional restrictions on free speech. The case has drawn attention to the Decorum Policy for Public Meetings in Niagara Falls, which bans all signs and “symbolic materials” in council chambers. Critics argue that such policies often serve to stifle legitimate public expression rather than maintain order.
Christine Van Geyn, the CCF’s litigation director, has emphasized that the women involved in the Niagara Falls protest were exercising their rights peacefully. “They were neither disruptive nor disorderly,” she said. “They were chastised for holding paper, and then arrested for quietly expressing their views. That is not how a democratic government should treat the voices of its citizens.”
The CCF’s lawsuit contends that the city’s policy violates Section 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which guarantees freedom of thought, belief, opinion, and expression. The organization argues that the ban on signs and symbolic materials is overly broad and disproportionate to the stated goal of maintaining decorum during council meetings.
Before escalating the matter to litigation, the CCF attempted to resolve the issue through correspondence with city officials. In a letter, the organization urged the City of Niagara Falls to rescind the sign ban, arguing that it was an unjustified restriction on free expression. However, the city maintained its position, citing health and safety concerns as the rationale for the policy.
The Niagara Falls case is the first to be supported by the CCF’s Municipal Censorship Defence Fund, a new initiative launched in 2025 to challenge unconstitutional speech restrictions at the municipal level. The Fund has garnered significant support, with donors matching contributions up to $50,000 at the time of the case’s launch. This financial backing underscores the importance of the issue to Canadians concerned about the erosion of civil liberties.
The CCF hopes that a successful outcome in this case will set a precedent that could impact municipalities across Canada. By challenging the Niagara Falls policy, the organization aims to establish clearer boundaries on the types of restrictions local governments can impose on public expression. If successful, the challenge could pave the way for overturning similar policies in other jurisdictions.
For the CCF, this case is about more than just defending the rights of the women involved. It represents a broader fight to ensure that Canadian municipalities respect and uphold the constitutional rights of all citizens. As the case progresses, it will likely spark important conversations about the balance between maintaining order in public spaces and protecting fundamental freedoms.
Conclusion
The legal challenge in Niagara Falls underscores a critical issue facing Canadian municipalities: the balance between maintaining order in public spaces and safeguarding constitutional rights. The CCF’s lawsuit highlights the importance of ensuring that policies aimed at regulating public expression do not overstep into unconstitutional territory. By challenging the Decorum Policy for Public Meetings, the CCF is not only defending the rights of the women involved but also advocating for a broader principle: that free expression must be protected in all its forms, even in the context of local governance.
As this case progresses, it has the potential to set a significant precedent for municipalities across Canada. The support from the Municipal Censorship Defence Fund demonstrates the growing concern among Canadians about the erosion of civil liberties. The outcome of this case will not only impact the women involved but also shape the future of free expression in public spaces nationwide.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)
1. What is the Niagara Falls case about?
The Niagara Falls case involves a legal challenge by the Canadian Constitution Foundation (CCF) against the City of Niagara Falls’ Decorum Policy for Public Meetings. The policy bans signs and symbolic materials in council chambers, which the CCF argues is an unconstitutional restriction on free expression.
2. Why is the Decorum Policy controversial?
The policy is controversial because it prohibits all signs and symbolic materials, even when they are used peacefully. Critics argue that such a broad ban stifles legitimate public expression rather than serving a legitimate purpose like maintaining order.
3. What is Section 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms?
Section 2(b) guarantees freedom of thought, belief, opinion, and expression. The CCF argues that the City of Niagara Falls’ policy violates this section by imposing an overly broad restriction on public expression.
4. How did the CCF try to resolve the issue before going to court?
The CCF attempted to resolve the issue through correspondence with city officials, urging the city to rescind the sign ban. However, the city maintained its position, citing health and safety concerns as the rationale for the policy.
5. What is the Municipal Censorship Defence Fund?
The Municipal Censorship Defence Fund is a new initiative launched by the CCF in 2025 to challenge unconstitutional speech restrictions at the municipal level. The Fund has garnered significant support, with donors matching contributions up to $50,000 at the time of the case’s launch.
6. What could be the broader impact of this case?
A successful outcome in this case could set a precedent that challenges similar policies in municipalities across Canada. It could establish clearer boundaries on the types of restrictions local governments can impose on public expression.
7. How can I support the cause?
You can support the cause by donating to the Municipal Censorship Defence Fund or by staying informed about the case and sharing its importance with others. Your support helps the CCF continue its work in defending constitutional rights.
