• British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal v. Schrenk, 2017 SCC 62 (CanLII), [2017] 2 SCR 795. The Supreme Court of Canada decided that British Columbia’s Human Rights Code can apply to situations of discrimination and harassment in the employment context, even if the individual committing the discriminatory act in question is not a direct employer.
• Bou Malhab v. Diffusion Métromédia CMR inc., 2011 SCC 9, [2011] 1 S.C.R. 214. A large group of 1000+ Montréal taxi drivers brought a defamation suit following commentary made by radio host André Arthur who accused Montreal taxi drivers whose mother tongue was Creole or Arabic or uncleanliness, arrogance, incompetence, corruption and ignorance of official languages. The Supreme Court of Canada said the group of was too large and heterogenous to support a showing of individual or personal damage.
• Calego International inc. c. Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse, 2013 QCCA 924 (CanLII). The Quebec Court of Appeal’s leading decision on how racist remarks can constitute a violation of the right to safeguard dignity. The case involved statements by an employer against Chinese workers about their alleged lack of cleanliness in the workplace which the Tribunal decided was discrimination by virtue of the right to safeguard dignity in the Quebec Charter of human rights and freedoms.
• Pardy v. Earle and others (No 4), 2011 BCHRT 101, The British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal ruled that comedian Guy Earle’s homophobic remarks directed as a lesbian couple delivered during his comedy routine constituted discrimination of the grounds of sexual orientation because the performance took place in a restaurant and thus constituted a service within the meaning of BC’s human rights law.
• Saskatchewan (Human Rights Commission) v. Whatcott 2013 SCC 11. A landmark unanimous decision of the Supreme Court of Canada. Mr Whatcott had published virulent, homophobic materials, arguing, in part, that his freedom of religion and of expression protected his views. The Court held that the prohibition in Saskatchewan’s provincial human rights law against publications exposing people to hate are constitutional because although the prohibition infringed the rights to freedom of expression and religion, they were nonetheless reasonable limits on those rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
• Ward v. Quebec (Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse) 2021 SCC 43. By a narrow 5-4 majority, the Supreme Court of Canada decided that Mike Ward’s comedy routine about Jérémy Gabriel, who was a child with a disability at the time, did not meet the tests set out for discrimination under Quebec’s Charter. The performance fell outside the usual contexts of employment, housing, services etc. and did not amount to hate speech. The Court indicated that the appropriate remedy for the protection of the right safeguard dignity in such cases is defamation and not human rights complaints.

• R. v Coban, 2022 BCSC 14 (CanLII).This case questions a publication ban which media organisations argued restricts freedom of expression in relation to s 486.4(3) of the Criminal Code which prohibits publication of minors and materials that may constitute child pornography. The discussion of s 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which protects free speech, is addressed briefly in relation to Ward.

• Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse (Guillaume) c. Entrepôt de la lunette inc. (9318-1022 Québec inc.), 2022 QCTDP 13 (CanLII). Case alleging wrongful dismissal based on racial discrimination. Applies Ward reasoning to dismiss the aspect of the case based on s 4 Quebec Charter (dignity rights) violation.
• Desbiens c. Standish, 2021 QCCS 4797 (CanLII). Defamation before the Quebec Superior Court that addressed s 4 of the Quebec Charter and the concept of dignity in defamation proceedings. The subject of the case is in relation to an alleged false claim of sexual assault.
• R. v. Bissonnette, 2022 SCC 23 (CanLII) The Supreme Court of Canada’s decision on the Québec mosque shooting sentencing decision. The Court accepted arguments that a mandatory minimum sentence imposed by s 745.51 of the Criminal Code, with 25 years of parole ineligibility, violates ss 7 (the right life, liberty and security of the person) and s 12 of the Canadian Charter (cruel and unusual treatment or punishment . The decision briefly alludes to Ward to address dignity in the discussion of the right not to be subject to cruel and unusual punishment.
• Rojas c. Mongrain, 2021 QCTDP 45 (CanLII). Discrimination complaint based on race involving an Airbnb host and a client. The Quebec Human Rights Tribunal dismisses the case based on the interpretation of s 4 dignity rights in the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms relating to the right to dignity is contravened and how that is assessed post-Ward.
• Syndicat des travailleuses et travailleurs de Rolls-Royce Canada - CSN c Rolls-Royce Canada Ltée, 2022 CanLII 29269 (QC SAT). The complainant is a member of an employer’s pension plan and he alleges the manager of human resources made defamatory remarks about him that violated his dignity. The Quebec arbitration tribunal draws on Ward to find that the remarks do not rise to the level of seriousness in terms of dignity (privacy, reputation etc) which is not found here.
• Syndicat interprofessionnel de Lanaudière c Centre intégré de santé et de services sociaux de Lanaudière, 2022 CanLII 58961 (QC SAT). Issue of whether an employee was wrongfully dismissed (at issue was whether her patient interaction was culturally sensitive or racist). The Quebec arbitration tribunal uses Ward reasoning to assess the degree of seriousness required to conclude whether the right to dignity has been violated.

• Mboula Lebala v. Attorney General of Quebec (Ministry of Public Security), 2022 QCTDP 11 (CanLII). This based on racial discrimination is the Quebec Human Rights Tribunal’s response to the Supreme Court’s decision in Ward, addressing the law of discrimination under Art 10 of the Quebec Charter and the Tribunal’s approach to interpreting and adjudicating discrimination cases.
• Olarte Ortega c. Lallemand Health Solutions Inc., 2022 QCTDP 7 (CanLII). Explores whether a discrimination allegation could actually be adjudicated by the Quebec Human Rights Tribunal post-Ward. The case relates to employment discrimination.

Establishing the themes of the conference with introductory readings on the topics related to the role of human rights commissions, equality rights, freedom of expression and its relation to democratic institutions.

• E.M. Barendt, Freedom of Speech, 2nd ed. (OUP 2007) Ch 1 “Why Protect Free Speech?
• Canadian Human Rights Commission, Anti-Racism Plan This annual progress report looks at the CHRC’s commitment to anti-racist action, both within and outside of the organization, and includes its role as a human rights advocate to participate in public dialogue on anti-racism in Canada; and amplify issues of importance as identified by Racialized stakeholders.
• Gilabert, Pablo (2019). Human Dignity and Human Rights (Oxford University Press). A systematic, and first book-length philosophical account of the content and significance of human dignity as a central idea for human rights available, providing a comprehensive and sophisticated discussion and elaboration of the idea of human dignity.
• Moon, R. (2019). What happens when the assumptions underlying our commitment to free speech no longer hold? Constitutional Forum. CanLIIDocs 4293.
• Tenove, C., Heidi J.S. Tworek,& Fenwick McKelvey (2018, November 8). “Poisoning Democracy: How Canada Can Address Harmful Speech Online”. Public Policy Forum. This report reviews hate speech in the international and Canadian contexts and proposes mutually supporting policy recommendations for the Canadian context . See Section 2: Current policies and their limitations; Section 4: Policy recommendations for Canada

Readings and commentaries on the Whatcott and Ward decisions regarding freedom of expression, and the role of the judiciary in problematizing these questions.

• Côté, D. (March 2022). Liberty vs. Equality: Defining the Limits of Free Expression in Ward v Quebec. University of Toronto Faculty of Law Review.
• Day, S. (2012-2013). Senate Should Think Hard about Hate Speech: Comment on Saskatchewan (Human Rights Comm.) v. Whatcott (2013), 76 C.H.R.R. D/1, 2013 SCC 11. Canadian Human Rights Reporter, 76, C/1-C/1.
• Eliadis, Pearl. 2014. Speaking Out on Human Rights: Debating Canada’s Human Rights System (Montreal, Kingston: McGill-Queen’s University Press). The role of human rights commissions in Canada and the beginning of the ‘culture wars’ on freedom of expression, including online expression, leading to the SCC decision in Whatcott.
• Freiman, Mark J.. "Hate Speech and the Reasonable Supreme Court of Canada." The Supreme Court Law Review: Osgoode’s Annual Constitutional Cases Conference 63. (2013).
• Gingras, A. “Freedom of Expression and Humor in Canada: The Case of Jérémy Gabriel v Mike Ward”, in Deflem, M., & Silva, D. (Eds.). (2021). Media and Law: Between Free Speech and Censorship (Emerald Publishing Limited. NB: This source is about original decicion of the Human Rights Tribunal and not the Supreme Court of Canada.
• Norman, K. (2014). “Words Matter: Case Comment on the Whatcott judgment”. Saskatchewan Law Review, 77(1), 105-118.
• Paré, C. (2020). Comedian Mike Ward v. The Quebec Human Rights Commission: The Moral Boundaries of Jokes About the Disabled. In: Oppliger, P.A., Shouse, E. (eds) The Dark Side of Stand-Up Comedy. Palgrave Studies in Comedy. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham.
• Schutten, A., & Haigh, R. (2015). “Whatcott and hate speech: Re-thinking freedom of expression in the Charter age” National J of Constitutional Law, 34(1), 1-30.
• Shariff, S., Macaulay, K., & Stonebanks, F. R. (2022). “What is the cost of free speech for entertainment? A missed opportunity by the Supreme Court of Canada to reduce offensive speech and protect marginalized youth.” Education & Law J, 31(1), 25-44.
• Zwibel, Cara Faith. "Reconciling Rights: The Whatcott Case as Missed Opportunity." The Supreme Court Law Review: Osgoode’s Annual. Constitutional Cases Conference 63. (2013).

Core to the interpretation of the Ward case was the discourse surrounding the idea of ‘dignity’ and how it can be interpreted. The following articles examine the granularity of conceptualizing human dignity and its underpinnings in shaping human rights perspectives and hate speech laws.

• Brown, A. (2015). Hate speech law: a philosophical examination. Taylor & Francis.
• McCrudden, C. Human Dignity and Judicial Interpretation of Human Rights, European Journal of International Law (September 2008). Volume 19, Issue 4, Pages 655–724.
• Misztal, B. A. (2013). The idea of dignity: Its modern significance. European Journal of Social Theory, 16(1), 101–121.
• Moon, R. (May 4, 2010). The Hate Speech Diversion. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2519064
• Waldron, J. (2010). Dignity And Defamation: The Visibility of Hate. Harvard Law Review, 123(7), 1596–1657.

Understanding the role of technological platforms and social media spaces as simultaneous spaces for modern democratic participation as well as ecosystems of harmful rhetoric, hate speech and unregulated offensive content.

• Gillespie, T. (2010). The politics of “platforms.” New Media & Society, 12(3), 347–364. This article looks at online content providers and examines the online information landscape and the ways that platform companies like Youtube seek limited liability for dangerous or destructive speech posted on their sites. Gillespie notes the degree to which information intermediaries can reject responsibility and the reality of political mobilisation and power that their platforms can foster. See ‘Policy’ (pp. 354-358); Subtitle ‘Edges’ (pp. 358-359)
• Joundi, T. (2015). Freedom of Expression, Discrimination, and the Internet: Legislative Responses and Judicial Reactions. 13:2 CJLT.
• Klonick, K. (2019). The New Governors: The People, Rules, and Processes Governing Online Speech. Harvardlawreview.org. This article investigates the way that online platforms have grown in the US and the tensions resulting from unregulated spaces for speech and democracy, especially in reference to responsibility of published speech on social media. See Section II Part A: Platforms’ Baseline in Free Speech (pp. 1618-1622); Part B: Why Moderate at All? (pp. 1625-1627)
• Owen, T. (2019). The Case for Platform Governance. This article discusses international relations, digital governance and technology with a focus on policy responses from the European Commission and the UK on platform governance. It argues that democracies cannot continue to fail to regulate online platforms: ‘Costs of the Platform Economy’ (pp. 3-8); ‘Toward a New Policy Agenda’ (pp. 8-15)

Following the previous section, these readings elaborate on attempts by different countries (Canada and the UK) to tackle the issue of mis/disinformation through legislation while balancing perspectives from vulnerable and marginalised communities.

• Boudjikanian, Raffy (2022, February 3). Government heads back to drawing board with online harm bill after negative reaction in consultations. CBC. This article takes a look at the government response to consultations with civil society groups and the implications of forcing tech companies to take down hate speech or offensive content within 24 hours. The article notes the complexity of policy against hate speech on online platforms as certain groups are inherently more vulnerable than others and may be criminalised, despite intentions to equally protect all citizens.
• Department for Digital, Culture, Media & Sport. (2019, April 30). Online Harms White Paper. GOV.UK. This UK white paper discusses online harms while setting out the vision for a ‘free, open and secure internet’ and ‘freedom of expression online’ in a regulatory framework. The paper aims to increase technological safety through innovative regulation and distributing responsibility among relevant actors in the digital space. A priority includes that users can participate online with transparency, trust and accountability.
• Woolf, M. (2022, April 23). LGBTQ, Indigenous and racialized groups fear online hate bill may curtail rights - National | Globalnews.ca. Global News; The Canadian Press. Marginalised communities such as members of the LGBTQ+, Indigenous peoples, sex workers, and racialised communities fear that the update to Bill C-36 in Canada actually impact these communities negatively, further isolating target groups whose speech and protests online fall under harmful content and hate speech.
• Tucker, J., Theocharis, Y., Roberts, M. E., & Barberá, P. (2017, December 6). This explains how social media can both weaken — and strengthen — democracy. The Washington Post. This article looks at the tension of online harm and its dual impact of democratising access to information while simultaneously being a conduit for mis/disinformation. This article treads the fine line between regulation and censorship and how the concept of free speech differs across different historical and political contexts.

This section examines varying perspectives of the German model and their conception of free speech as it one of the stricter regulators of online content and boundaries of free speech, especially relating to hate speech being criminalised.

• Glaun, D. (2021, July 1). Germany’s Laws on Hate Speech, Nazi Propaganda & Holocaust Denial: An Explainer. FRONTLINE. Glaun reflects on Germany’s regulation of hate speech rules and its origins from incendiary propaganda in Nazi Germany. The stance taken by Germany's minister of justice is particularly pertinent as it highlights that democracy is threatened when individuals are free to attack one another on the basis of name, appearance, and political affiliations.
• Delcker, J. (2020, October 6). Germany’s Balancing Act: Fighting Online Hate While Protecting Free Speech. POLITICO. The Digital Services Act in Europe is one of the strictest legal frameworks clarifying how best to moderate hate speech; this has sparked debate due to the concerns over suppression of free speech. Specifically in Germany, under the upgrade to the law NetzDG (Network Enforcement Act), platforms are required to proactively and identify users using hate speech to the appropriate law enforcement officials.
• Human Rights Watch. (2018, February 15). Germany: Flawed Social Media Law. Human Rights Watch. Human Rights Watch argues that Germany’s social media law sets a precedent for more authoritarian states to justify surveillance on citizen’s online activity. This article also includes the reaction from social media companies and how they have responded through internal review mechanisms to avoid external government regulation inhibiting their business activity.

These readings look at the Canadian context and previous instances of attempting to legislate against issues surrounding hate speech and the tensions between free expression and equality in the Canadian charter of human rights.

• Abella, R. (October 2017). Freedom of Expression or Freedom From Hate: A Canadian Perspective. Cardozo Law Review.
• Canadian Race Relations Foundation. Reimagining a path to support all Canadians. (August 2022).
• Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse. Xenphobic and Notably Islamophobic Acts of Hate: Summary. (September 24, 2019).
• Cossman, B. (2018). Gender identity, gender pronouns, and freedom of expression: Bill C-16 and the traction of specious legal claims. University of Toronto Press.
• Macfarlane, Emmett (ed). 2021, Dilemmas of Free Expression (University of Toronto Press).
• Walker, J. (June 2018). Hate Speech and Freedom of Expression: Legal Boundaries in Canada. Library of Parliament.