CCCC Intervention Update: Court finds Quebec Tourism Minister’s decision to cancel Christian conference violated free expression

The Quebec Superior Court found in favour of Christian group Harvest Ministries International (HMI) in its challenge of the Quebec Tourism Minister’s decision to cancel HMI’s rental contract with a government-owned conference centre. That decision violated the rental contract and HMI’s Charter protected freedom of expression. Damages for losses and punitive damages, totalling approximately $60,000 were awarded to HMI.

CCCC intervened in this case as part of a coalition, along with the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada and Réseau Évangélique du Québec. Our intervention focused on two issues: collective freedom of religion, and freedom of expression.

Freedom of Religion

The Quebec government had argued HMI had no religious freedom right, so our intervention urged the court to explicitly find that HMI, as a corporate or collective entity, has its own religious freedom.

Ultimately, while the court did not address freedom of religion, neither did it agree with the Quebec government’s position. Instead, the court concluded it was unnecessary to examine freedom of religion because the Minister’s decision infringed HMI’s freedom of expression.

Freedom of Expression

The judgement thoroughly addresses freedom of expression, and reflects much of our intervener arguments on the issue. The conference was “plainly expressive” (para 106, unofficial translation) and warrants protection. Its location in a convention centre underscores the expressive nature of the activity.

During the trial, the Minister of Tourism “unequivocally” determined to exclude HMI from expressing pro-life opinions which she determined were “contrary to Quebec’s fundamental principles” of being pro-choice.

The decision was unreasonable – access to public spaces cannot depend on whether the user’s message makes the Minister uncomfortable or that conflict with her personal views.

Arbitrary Decision Making and Breach of Contract

The Court further held that the Minister had no legislative or regulatory authority to cancel the contract, that she exercised her power “arbitrarily and abusively, without regard for the plaintiff’s rights” on the basis of “ideological disagreement” (paras 71, 61, unofficial translation).

Her conduct was intentional and wrongful, resulting in personal liability.

Compensation to HMI

The Court awarded approximately $30,600 in damages for breach of contract. The court noted HMI made “extensive efforts to relocate the event” to a private venue, but without success. The court awarded a further $30,000 in punitive damages against the Minister personally. Punitive damages are awarded if damages (e.g. loss as a result of the contract cancellation) are not sufficient to prevent the wrongful act from happening again. The purpose of punitive damages is  to punish and prevent “malicious, oppressive and high-handed” conduct that “offends the court’s sense of decency” (para 149, unofficial translation).

In this case, the court held that HMI’s Charter protected freedom of expression was infringed because of the Minister’s intentional decision; that she acted arbitrarily and with “full knowledge” of the immediate or extremely likely consequence for HMI (paras 156-157).

Concluding Comments

Overall, this is a positive outcome for religious organizations in Quebec.

We intervened to ensure that the government did not succeed in arguing that HMI could not make a religious freedom claim. While we urged the court to make a positive finding on this point and the judge did not affirm a corporate right to religious freedom, the end result has preserved religious freedom. It was neither minimized nor negatively impacted.

We also intervened to ensure that freedom of expression was applied equally to religious expression. The judgement provides a very clear statement of how freedom of expression applies to protect opinions that differ from those of government officials.

Finally, the judgment is a very clear and strong reprimand of the Minister’s unlawful approach to decision-making and one that should government actors pause in similar, future situations.