The city’s decision to pull anti-abortion ads from its buses without weighing freedom of expression rights was “unreasonable,” a judicial panel has ruled.
At issue are three Guelph & Area Right for Life advertisements – one pulled in December of 2019 and two pulled in March of 2020 – which were removed at the advice of Ads Standards, which received complaints about the ads’ accuracy.
“The concerns over inaccuracy must be weighed against the applicant’s right to freedom of expression. This would include consideration of whether the statement is an expression of opinion or fact,” states the ruling, made by a three-judge panel.
“This does not mean that accuracy is irrelevant. In fact, in some cases, for example commercial speech, inaccuracy might be sufficient. However, where, as here, we are dealing with a form of political speech, concerns over inaccuracy cannot be the end of the analysis for rejecting an advertisement.”
The organization challenged the city’s decision to pull the ads, petitioning for a judicial review that took place last summer and saw several national organizations granted intervenor status, including Association for Reformed Political Action (ARPA) Canada, Christian Heritage Party of Canada and Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada.
Attempts to reach representatives for the city and Guelph & Area Right for Life weren’t immediately successful.
One of the ads contained a blurry picture of a woman holding an ultrasound-depicted fetus with the caption, “Life Should Be the Most Fundamental Human Right – Say No to Abortion.”
Another featured a photo of a pregnant woman on one side and a photo of the same woman holding a baby on the other side. The caption read, “Human rights should not depend on where you are. Say no to abortion.”
The third included a photo of a fetus in a uterus with the caption, “What about her choice? Say No to Abortion.”
The panel stopped short of ordering the city to re-post the advertisements in question, but rather urged it to reevaluate its stance on the ads after considering the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and weighing it against Ad Standards’ advice.
During the hearing, Guelph and Area Right for Life argued the city improperly relied on the Ad Standards advice alone.
“In our view … the city is entitled to obtain and rely on rulings made by Ad Standards in deciding whether to post advertisements. However, the city cannot rely on Ad Standards as the final arbiter of the decisions it must make,” the ruling states. “This is not so much due to a concern over fettering but rather because the exercise performed by Ad Standards is not the same exercise as the analysis the city is to perform (based on previous court rulings).
“Even if we had accepted that the rationale for the decisions provided in the city’s affidavit evidence was properly before the court, we would still have found the decisions unreasonable.”
