Advanced Search
- All Databases (65)
- Decisions (19)
- Resources (46)
65 result(s)
-
1.
R. v. Keegstra - [1990] 3 SCR 697 - 1990-12-13
Supreme Court JudgmentsConstitutional law
Government sponsored hatred on group grounds would violate section 15 of the Charter. Parliament promotes equality and moves against inequality when it prohibits the wilful public promotion of group hatred on these grounds. [...] Those supporting s. 319(2) of the Criminal Code point to the fact that it applies only to wilful promotion of hatred, and not to promotion of any lesser emotion. Hatred, they argue, is the most extreme and reprehensible of human emotions. [...] But "hatred" does not stand alone. To convict, it must have been "wilfully promote[d]".
-
2.
R. v. Andrews - [1990] 3 SCR 870 - 1990-12-13
Supreme Court JudgmentsConstitutional law
The accused were charged with the wilful promotion of hatred against an identifiable group under s. 319(2) of the Criminal Code . [...] The wilful promotion of hatred even more than the spreading of false news is entirely antithetical to our very system of freedom. [...] The appellants were convicted of the offence of wilfully promoting hatred against an identifiable group (s. 319(2) of the Code).
-
3.
R. v. Krymowski - 2005 SCC 7 - [2005] 1 SCR 101 - 2005-02-24
Supreme Court JudgmentsCriminal law
Criminal law — Hate propaganda — Wilful promotion of hatred — Whether Crown failed to prove that wilful promotion of hatred was against “Roma” as particularized in information — Whether trial judge ought to have taken judicial notice of dictionary definitions demonstrating relationship between gypsies and Roma — Criminal [...] The gist of the offence under s. 319(2) is the wilful promotion of hatred against any identifiable group. In this case, the Crown particularized the group as “Roma”. [...] 13 The gist of the offence under s. 319(2) of the Criminal Code is the wilful promotion of hatred against any identifiable group. The provision reads as follows:
-
4.
R. v. Zundel - [1992] 2 SCR 731 - 1992-08-27
Supreme Court JudgmentsConstitutional law
Criminal law
Section 181 catches not only deliberate falsehoods which promote hatred, but sanctions all false assertions which the prosecutor believes `likely to cause injury or mischief to a public interest', regardless of whether they promote the values underlying s. 2(b). [...] It is enough that those who publicly and wilfully promote hatred convey or attempt to convey a meaning . . . . Similarly, constitutional protection under s. 2(b) must therefore be extended to the deliberate publication of statements known to be false which convey meaning in a non-violent form. [...] There is very little chance that statements intended to promote hatred against an identifiable group are true, or that their vision of society will lead to a better world.
-
5.
Mugesera v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) - 2005 SCC 40 - [2005] 2 SCR 100 - 2005-06-28
Supreme Court JudgmentsAdministrative law
Criminal law
Immigration
(2) Every one who, by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, wilfully promotes hatred against any identifiable group is guilty of [an offence]. [...] (2), an offence is committed only by wilfully promoting hatred against an identifiable group through the communication of statements other than in private conversation. [...] (1) is something less than intentional promotion of hatred. On the other hand, the use of the word “wilfully” in subs.
-
6.
Canada (human Rights Commission) v. Taylor - [1990] 3 SCR 892 - 1990-12-13
Supreme Court JudgmentsAdministrative law
Constitutional law
that it must yield to reasonable measures prohibiting the promotion of hatred and discrimination against groups. On this approach, no conflict between freedom of expression and the limiting legislation arises; freedom of expression is readily cut back to accommodate laws against the promotion of hatred and discrimination. [...] The most significant is the means by which the promotion of hatred is to be curbed. In Keegstra and Andrews, the method at issue was the criminalization of wilful attempts to promote hatred against groups. [...] vague, emotive terms without definition, the state necessarily incurs the risk of catching within the ambit of the regulated area expression falling short of hatred. The breadth of the section is further widened by the absence of any requirement of intent or foreseeability of the actual promotion of hatred or contempt.
-
7.
Bulletin of August 2, 2002 - 2002-08-02
BulletinsCanadian Charter - Criminal - Criminal Law - Wilful promotion of hatred - Mens rea - Defences - Whether mens rea for wilful promotion of hatred includes wilful blindness - Whether statutory defence of good faith construed narrowly and unconstitutionally - Whether good faith requirement of statutory defence protects against [...] Applicant convicted of three counts of wilful promotion of hatred; Sentenced to three concurrent conditional terms of three months followed by two years probation
-
8.
R. v. Keegstra - [1995] 2 SCR 381 - 1995-05-18
Supreme Court JudgmentsCriminal law
K was found guilty of wilful promotion of hatred against an identifiable group contrary to s. 319(2) of the Criminal Code . [...] L.R. (3d) 4, 157 A.R. 1, 77 W.A.C. 1, 92 C.C.C. (3d) 505, allowing the accused's appeal from his conviction for wilful promotion of hatred and ordering a new trial. Motion to quash dismissed. [...] (2) Every one who, by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, wilfully promotes hatred against any identifiable group is guilty of (a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or
-
9.
R. v. Hamilton - 2005 SCC 47 - [2005] 2 SCR 432 - 2005-07-29
Supreme Court JudgmentsCriminal law
In that case, the constitutional validity of s. 319(2), which prohibits communications that wilfully promote hatred against an identifiable group, was challenged on the basis that it unduly restricted the freedom of expression under s. 2( b ) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms . [...] The Court adopted a stringent standard, noting that the limitation on the mens rea required to convict for “wilfully promoting hatred” was a key factor in minimizing the impairment of freedom of expression caused by that provision. [...] Dickson C.J. noted that the requirement that the speaker subjectively intend that his speech promote hatred “significantly restricts the reach of the provision, and thereby reduces the scope of the targeted expression” (p. 775).
-
10.
Judgments to be Rendered in Leave Applications / Prochains jugements sur demandes d'autorisation - 2007-03-02
News ReleasesCriminal Law - Offences - Wilful Promotion of Hatred - Elements of Offence - Meaning of “communicating” in s. 319(2) of the Criminal Code , R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46 - Whether wilful promotion of hatred requires that members of the public received the statements of hatred. [...] The respondent conceded that some of the lyrics promote hatred. June 9, 2004 Ontario Court of Justice (Hogg J.) Neutral citation: None [...] Respondent acquitted of fifteen charges of wilful promotion of hatred July 6, 2005 Ontario Superior Court of Justice
-
11.
SCR | RCS [1990] vol 3 - 1990-12-20
Canada Supreme Court ReportsParliament promotes equality and moves against inequality when it prohibits the wilful public promotion of group hatred on these grounds. [...] But "hatred" does not stand alone. To convict, it must have been "wilfully promote[d]". [...] The most significant is the means by which the promotion of hatred is to be curbed. In Keegstra and Andrews, the method at issue was the crimi-nalization of wilful attempts to promote hatred against groups.
-
12.
Bulletin of February 25, 2005 - 2005-02-25
BulletinsCriminal law B Hate propaganda B Wilful promotion of hatred B Whether Crown failed to prove that wilful promotion of hatred was against ARoma@ as particularized in information B Whether trial judge ought to have taken judicial notice of dictionary definitions demonstrating relationship between gypsies and Roma B Criminal [...] The gist of the offence under s. 319(2) is the wilful promotion of hatred against any identifiable group. In this case, the Crown particularized the group as ARoma@. [...] 227 D.L.R. (4th) 504, 171 O.A.C. 369, 175 C.C.C. (3d) 112, [2003] O.J. No. 1920 (QL), affirming a decision of the summary conviction appeal court, 2002 CarswellOnt. 5516, affirming the acquittals by the Court of Justice on charges of wilfully promoting hatred, 2000 CarswellOnt. 5870. Appeal allowed and new trials ordered.
-
13.
R. v. Lucas - [1998] 1 SCR 439 - 1998-04-02
Supreme Court JudgmentsConstitutional law
Criminal law
The protection of an individual’s reputation from wilful and false attack recognizes both the innate dignity of the individual and the integral link between reputation and the fruitful participation of an individual in Canadian society. [...] I cannot think of a more rational way to protect the reputation of individuals from wilful and false attack than the creation of the aggravated offence crafted by the committee. [...] In addressing the value to be given to a communication intended to promote hatred against identifiable groups, Dickson C.J. stated, at p. 765:
-
14.
Bulletin of March 9, 2007 - 2007-03-09
BulletinsCriminal Law - Offences - Wilful Promotion of Hatred - Elements of Offence - Meaning of “communicating” in s. 319(2) of the Criminal Code , R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46 - Whether wilful promotion of hatred requires that members of the public received the statements of hatred. [...] The respondent conceded that some of the lyrics promote hatred. June 9, 2004 Ontario Court of Justice (Hogg J.) Neutral citation: None [...] Respondent acquitted of fifteen charges of wilful promotion of hatred July 6, 2005 Ontario Superior Court of Justice
-
15.
Hansman v. Neufeld - 2023 SCC 14 - 2023-05-19
Supreme Court JudgmentsCourts
At trial, H need not demonstrate that N is bigoted, transphobic, or promoted hatred, as the question is merely whether the statement can be tethered to an adequate factual basis so the reader can be an informed judge. [...] [113] Additionally, Mr. Neufeld contends that because the Criminal Code recognizes an offence of wilful promotion of hatred (see s. 319(2)), the allegation that he “tip toed . . . into hate speech” would be taken as imputing criminal liability. [...] [152] Read plainly and in the context of the press release, this statement implies that Mr. Neufeld promoted hatred against an identifiable group, i.e. LGBTQ students. [153] Then, in April 2018, a news article was published on CityNews 1130’s website.
-
16.
Bulletin of October 18, 2002 - 2002-10-18
BulletinsCanadian Charter - Criminal - Criminal Law - Wilful promotion of hatred - Mens rea - Defences - Whether mens rea for wilful promotion of hatred includes wilful blindness - Whether statutory defence of good faith construed narrowly and unconstitutionally - Whether good faith requirement of statutory defence protects against [...] Applicant convicted of three counts of wilful promotion of hatred; Sentenced to three concurrent conditional terms of three months followed by two years probation
-
17.
Bulletin of June 30, 2005 - 2005-06-30
BulletinsUnder s. 319(1) of the Code , the offence of inciting hatred against an identifiable group is committed if such hatred is incited by the communication, in a public place, of statements likely to lead to a breach of the peace; under s. 319(2), the offence is committed only by wilfully promoting hatred against an identifiable [...] The section does not require proof that the communication caused actual hatred. The guilty mind required by s. 319(1) is something less than intentional promotion of hatred. [...] Under s. 319(2), the person committing the act must have had as a conscious purpose the promotion of hatred against the identifiable group or must have communicated the statements even though he or she foresaw that the promotion of hatred against that group was certain to result.
-
18.
Appeal Heard / Appel entendu - 2004-11-08
News ReleasesOn or about the 26th day of August, 1997, in the City of Scarborough, in the Toronto Region, and elsewhere in the Province of Ontario, did wilfully promote hatred against an identifiable group, to wit Roma, by communicating statements, including the written statements: "Honk if you hate Gypsies", "Canada is not a Trash
-
19.
Thomson Newspapers Co. v. Canada (Attorney General) - [1998] 1 SCR 877 - 1998-05-29
Supreme Court JudgmentsConstitutional law
The salutary effect of s. 322.1 is to promote the right of voters not to be misled in the exercise of their right to vote. [...] 60 The salutary effect of s. 322.1 is to promote the right of voters not to be misled in the exercise of their right to vote. [...] These considerations undermine the notion that we can draw a bright line between provisions which are justifiable because they require proof that hatred actually resulted, and provisions which are unjustifiable because they require only an intent to promote hatred.
-
20.
SCR | RCS [2005] vol 2 - 2005-10-21
Canada Supreme Court Reports(2) Every one who, by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, wilfully promotes hatred against any identifiable group is guilty of [an offence]. 100 Section 319 creates two distinct offences in rela- tion to the incitement of hatred against an identifi-able group. [...] (2), an offence is com-mitted only by wilfully promoting hatred against an identifiable group through the communication of statements other than in private conversation. [...] (1) is something less than intentional promotion of hatred. On the other hand, the use of the word "wilfully" in subs.
-
21.
Ward v. Quebec (Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse) - 2021 SCC 43 - [2021] 3 SCR 176 - 2021-10-29
Supreme Court Judgments(a) to promote recognition of the inherent dignity and the equal inalienable rights of all members of the human family; and [...] The complainants, who had received the flyers at their homes, argued that the material promoted hatred against individuals because of their sexual orientation — a prohibited ground recognized by the Saskatchewan statute. [...] Expression that stirs up extreme and intrinsically dangerous emotions like hatred in an audience clearly does not have the same impact as expression that is calm and rational.
-
22.
Ontario v. Canadian Pacific Ltd. - [1995] 2 SCR 1031 - 1995-07-20
Supreme Court JudgmentsConstitutional law
In R. v. Keegstra, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 697, for instance, the defences established in s. 319(3) of the Criminal Code , R.S.C., 1985, c. C-46 , to prosecutions for "wilfully promoting hatred" under s. 319(2) provided considerable assistance in interpreting the ambit of the offence in s. 319(2). [...] [The s. 319(3)] defences are ... intended to aid in making the scope of the wilful promotion of hatred more explicit; individuals engaging in the type of expression described [in s. 319(3)] are thus given a strong signal that their activity will not be swept into the ambit of the offence. [...] 53 Moreover, the precise codification of environmental hazards in environmental protection legislation may hinder, rather than promote, public understanding of what conduct is prohibited, and may fuel uncertainty about the "area of risk" created by the legislation.
-
23.
Judgments to be Rendered in Appeals / Prochains jugements sur appels - 2005-02-18
News ReleasesOn or about the 26th day of August, 1997, in the City of Scarborough, in the Toronto Region, and elsewhere in the Province of Ontario, did wilfully promote hatred against an identifiable group, to wit Roma, by communicating statements, including the written statements: "Honk if you hate Gypsies", "Canada is not a Trash
-
24.
SCR | RCS [2013] vol 1 - 2013-03-14
Canada Supreme Court ReportsThey alleged that the material promoted hatred against individuals because of their sexual orien tation, thereby violating s. 14 of the Code. [...] Il n’est ni nécessaire ni suffisant que l’on ait fait ouvertement la promotion du traitement [2013] 1 R.C.S. SASKATCHEWAN (H.R.C.) c. WHATCOTT Le juge Rothstein protected group to hatred. [...] Mr. Whatcott therefore combined expression exposing homosexuals to hatred with expression promoting their discriminatory treatment. In my view, it was not unreasonable for the Tribunal to conclude that this expression was more likely than not to expose homosexuals to hatred.
-
25.
Agenda / Calendrier - 2004-10-27
News ReleasesCriminal Law - Offences - Indecent act in public place - Accused found guilty of wilfully doing an indecent act in a public place in the presence of one or more persons - Whether there are circumstances which can convert the living room of a private residence into a “public place” - Whether the Court of Appeal [...] The Appellant was charged with one count under s. 173(1)(a) of wilfully doing an indecent act, masturbating, in a public place, in the presence of one or more persons and one count under s. 173(1)(b) of wilfully doing an indecent act, masturbating, in a place, a dwelling house, with intent to insult or offend any person . [...] On or about the 26th day of August, 1997, in the City of Scarborough, in the Toronto Region, and elsewhere in the Province of Ontario, did wilfully promote hatred against an identifiable group, to wit Roma, by communicating statements, including the written statements: "Honk if you hate Gypsies", "Canada is not a Trash