Source: Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms
The Superior Court of Quebec has ruled that the provincial government violated the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms when it directed the publicly owned Quebec City Convention Centre to cancel a Christian conference because of the organizers’ views on abortion. The decision is a significant affirmation that governments cannot use control of public venues to punish groups whose beliefs they dislike.
In 2023, Harvest Ministries International, a British Columbia-based Christian organization, had booked the convention centre for a ten-day event called “Faith, Fire and Freedom.” Then-Tourism Minister Caroline Proulx ordered the contract cancelled after learning of the group’s pro-life positions. She later defended the decision as an effort to “counter disinformation.” The conference program itself did not include presentations on abortion, but the minister acted on the basis of the organization’s prior statements and beliefs.
Justice Alain Trudel found that the minister acted without legal authority, exercised government power arbitrarily, and denied access to a public facility solely because officials disagreed with the group’s viewpoint. The court held that this unjustifiably infringed Harvest Ministries’ freedoms of expression, religion, and association. It awarded compensatory damages of roughly $30,600 for the cancelled contract and ordered Proulx personally to pay $30,000 in punitive damages after concluding that her conduct intentionally infringed the organization’s freedom of expression.
Constitutional lawyer Olivier Séguin, who acted for the group through the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms, noted that the judgment confirms governments cannot use public facilities to punish organizations simply because officials disagree with their beliefs. The ruling underscores a basic principle: access to publicly owned venues cannot be conditioned on ideological conformity.
When governments control major public spaces and then selectively exclude groups based on viewpoint, the practical effect is to shrink the space available for lawful expression and association. The court’s decision pushes back against that practice. Public institutions are meant to serve the public as a whole, not only those whose views align with the preferences of the government of the day. This ruling is a reminder that the Charter still places limits on how far officials can go in enforcing their own orthodoxy.
