FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
September 6, 2025
ST. CATHARINES, ON – A series of billboards urging that children be protected from harmful, irreversible medical interventions were taken down today from the side of the QEW near the Garden City Skyway after Pride Niagara pressured the Mayor of St. Catharines to intervene.
Mayor Mat Siscoe contacted Vann Advertising, the company contracted to host the signs, following activist demands. Under mounting political pressure from activists and Mayor Siscoe, Vann Advertising decided to terminate the campaign only days into its twelve-week run.
The billboards’ simple message—opposing medical transitions for minors—reflects growing concern from medical experts and parents about the serious, lifelong consequences of these procedures. The ads are part of a national campaign hosted at LetKidsBe.ca and were funded entirely through donations from three local ARPA Canada grassroots chapters in Southern Ontario.
Mayor Siscoe’s actions follow just weeks after the Mayor of Hamilton, Andrea Horwath, ordered the same billboard to be taken from a billboard that stood on city property. ARPA is taking Hamilton to court over Mayor Horwath’s move.
“What is particularly troubling about Mayor Siscoe’s actions is that it shows that even billboards on private property are not safe from political censorship,” ARPA Canada’s Executive Director Mike Schouten commented. “The City isn’t even responsible for the property these billboards are located on, yet Mayor Siscoe still went out of his way to stop people from sharing this important message.”
“This campaign is about protecting vulnerable children,” Mike Schouten said. “The decision to silence this message under pressure from activists and political leaders is deeply concerning. Instead of shutting down dialogue, we should be engaging with the evidence and listening to those who have been harmed by these interventions.”
The Let Kids Be campaign is rooted in compassion for children experiencing gender distress, calling for counselling and supportive care—not hormones or surgeries—as the safest and most responsible approach.
For more information about the campaign, visit LetKidsBe.ca
-30-
For media inquiries, please contact:
Mike Schouten
[email protected]
Tel. (778) 321-2457
The Association for Reformed Political Action (ARPA) Canada has initiated litigation against the City of London, Ontario, challenging the constitutionality and legality of a city bylaw that is designed to restrict pro-life speech.
The name of the bylaw is misleading. Called the “By-law to regulate the Delivery of Graphic Images in the City of London,” it defines “graphic image” only as an image of a fetus. This encompasses any image of a fetus, which would include, for example, an ultrasound photo of a healthy baby in the womb. The bylaw does not apply to any other kind of images, graphic or otherwise. The bylaw was passed in May 2022, the first of its kind in Canada.
The bylaw was introduced in response to a petition by Pro-Choice London, an advocacy group. The Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada also wrote to City Council in support of a bylaw. The Director of Pro-Choice London, Deanna Ronson, is also a board member of the Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada. City Council briefly considered a bylaw that would have defined “graphic image” more objectively as “a detailed pictorial image or series of images, containing potentially sensitive content that may cause or trigger a negative reaction to the health and wellbeing of any person at any scale,” but soon abandoned this definition in favour of one that exclusively targeted fetal imagery.
“ARPA Canada is a Christian, pro-life organization that uses ultrasound photos of pre-born children in its campaign materials when advocating for modest pro-life laws that most Canadians would support, such as restrictions on sex-selective abortion,” says Anna Nienhuis of ARPA Canada. “This bylaw threatens ARPA and its volunteers with significant financial penalties simply for sharing the pro-life message with an ultrasound photo.”
The bylaw forbids delivering a flyer with any image of a fetus to a private residence unless the flyer is placed in a sealed envelope with the warning that it “contains a Graphic Image that may be offensive or disturbing to some people.”
“The bylaw requires ARPA and its volunteers to mislead people about our message,” says John Sikkema, ARPA’s legal counsel.
“Ultrasound photos are a beautiful view of life in the womb, something I’ve hung on my fridge and shared with friends and family. They are not offensive or disturbing – labelling them as graphic images is misleading and inappropriate,” said Nienhuis, a mother of five.
ARPA Canada argues in its application to the Divisional Court that such compelled expression is a well-recognized violation of the Charter right to freedom of expression. They also argue that a municipality does not have the constitutional authority to regulate the distribution of literature based on the City’s judgment of what specific content, point of view, or subject matter is objectionable or offensive.
ARPA contends that the bylaw’s true nature and purpose is to suppress pro-life content. Last year, ARPA challenged the City of St. Catharines’ bylaw that was modelled after and nearly identical to the City of London’s bylaw. In response, St. Catharines repealed its bylaw in August 2024, rather than attempting to defend it in court.
ARPA is asking the Divisional Court in London to strike down the bylaw as unconstitutional, as a violation of the Charter rights to freedom of conscience and religion and freedom of expression, and as outside of the authority of a municipal government.
-30-
For media inquiries, please contact:
John Sikkema
ARPA Canada
Email: [email protected]
Tel. 1-866-691-2772
The Ontario Court of Appeal has ordered a retrial of William Whatcott on a criminal charge of willfully promoting hatred against gay men for distributing a graphic flyer at the Toronto Pride Parade that warned about the dangers of gay sex. Mr. Whatcott was acquitted at trial and the Crown appealed. The Crown succeeded at the Court of Appeal in obtaining a retrial.
The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge was wrong to exclude “expert evidence” from York University professor Nick Mulé, who is considered an expert in anti-gay discrimination. Professor Mulé teaches at York University’s School of Gender, Sexuality and Women’s Studies. His Ph.D. is in Social Work and Social Policy.
The excluded evidence was a written opinion by Professor Mulé about how Mr. Whatcott’s flyer relied on several anti-gay “tropes” in order to promote hatred against gay men. Those tropes, according to Professor Mulé, are based on health (gay men are diseased), religion (gay men are morally corrupt), and law (that gay men are criminals). According to Professor Mulé, these “tropes” function somewhat like “dog whistles” – though taking the form of medical claims or sincere religious objections to certain sexual conduct, they are allegedly rooted in deeply discriminatory, damaging, and hateful stereotypes of gay men.
The Court of Appeal concluded that “Professor Mulé’s evidence would have been of great assistance to the trial judge in recognizing and analyzing the contents and impact of the ‘dog whistles’.” The Court of Appeal has therefore ordered a retrial, in which the judge or jury must consider Professor Mulé’s evidence. Whatcott could be acquitted again or convicted on retrial. He could also appeal this ruling to the Supreme Court of Canada.
The rest of this article further explains why the Court of Appeal has ordered a retrial. For more background on this case and a summary of ARPA’s arguments at the Court of Appeal, see our earlier article.
Expert evidence in court cases
Judges must decide cases based only on evidence that is properly before a court. There is a large body of law governing the admissibility of evidence. For starters, the evidence must be reliable and relevant. And its “probative value” must outweigh its “prejudicial effect” – for example, evidence of a defendant’s past convictions may prejudice a jury against him but have little value in helping them determine what happened in the case before them.
All evidence comes before the court through witnesses. Witnesses’ testimony can be tested through cross-examination and compared to the testimony of other witnesses.
Witnesses are not ordinarily permitted to give opinions. Rather, they are to testify about facts they have observed directly – what did they see or hear or say or do? But there is a narrow exception to this rule for experts, who may be permitted to give opinion evidence if their evidence passes a certain test. If permitted, an expert may offer interpretations of facts or an opinion as to what certain facts imply.
Expert evidence is “presumptively inadmissible.” The burden is on the party who wants to bring an expert to court to demonstrate that the expert’s opinion is both relevant to an issue before the court and necessary to assist the judge or jury. The proposed expert witness must also be established as an expert in the subject matter in question and his evidence must not go beyond the scope of his expertise.
An expert opinion is considered necessary to assist the trier of fact where the meaning or implication of certain facts is beyond the ordinary person’s ability to comprehend. For example, an expert may be permitted to testify not only as to what he observed at the scene of a burned building but also to give his opinion on what likely caused the fire.
One danger in admitting expert opinion evidence is that the “trier of fact” – the judge or jury – will defer to the expert’s opinion as to what certain facts established by direct evidence imply, rather than decide this for themselves based on a holistic and objective assessment of all the evidence.
The role of experts in Whatcott’s trial
In Whatcott’s case, it is not the job of an expert in Christian theology, medicine, social work, or any other field to determine whether Whatcott committed a crime at the pride parade. That is the job of the judge or jury.
But the trial judge did admit opinion evidence from two experts. Dr. Loutfy was an expert in sexually transmitted diseases and gave her opinion regarding the degree of (in)accuracy of Whatcott’s claims about the health risks of engaging in gay sex. Another was Douglas Farrow, a theological expert, who explained the ways in which the flyer was connected to important scriptural themes like the sinfulness of gay sex and the duty to warn people about the dire consequences of sin and to call sinners to repentance.
As for the proposed opinion evidence of Professor Mulé, the trial judge found that the “detailed linkages between the tropes of health and religion and anti-gay discrimination as found in the academic literature are unlikely to be within the knowledge and experience of the trier of fact.” However, the trial judge also concluded that a full knowledge of these “detailed linkages” was unnecessary, as “there is a well-known history of discrimination against gay people based on religion, health, and law.”
The trial judge also found that Professor Mulé’s report, which was highly critical of traditional religious teachings on sexual morality might have a significant prejudicial effect and turn Whatcott’s trial into a debate about the merits of his religious beliefs, rather than about whether he intended in this instance to promote hatred against an identifiable group.
The Court of Appeal concludes the trial judge erred in excluding Professor Mulé’s report
The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge erred by mischaracterizing the issue of necessity. The Court of Appeal said the issue is not whether a judge or jury could understand – without an expert’s opinion – that anti-gay discrimination exists. It is whether the judge could understand the subtle ways in which the flyer “perpetuated long-held negative stereotypes about gay men and relied on these stereotypes to promote hate” (para 41).
The Court of Appeal also reasoned that Professor Mulé’s report will provide important evidence of how the flyer impacts gay men. “The perspective of the gay male community as it relates to the tropes present in the flyer might strengthen (or diminish) the hatefulness of Mr. Whatcott’s communication,” the Court reasons. With respect, the Court’s reasoning on this point appears to constitute an error of law. The Court here seems to incorporate the perspective of gay men into the key task of setting the legal standard for hate speech.
While it is true, as the Court of Appeal notes, that the Supreme Court of Canada has identified the emotional distress caused by hate speech as one of the harms that hate speech laws seek to suppress, the Supreme Court has simultaneously maintained that the legal test for whether a person has committed the crime of willfully promoting hatred is not based on the perspective of the target group. The accused speaker cannot be convicted based on the subjective feelings of the target group. Thus, evidence as to the subjective reaction of the target group is not needed to resolve the case. Nor is an expert opinion necessary to establish how the speech in question makes the target group feel. In any hate speech case, the Crown could call several witnesses from among the target group to testify directly about how the alleged hate speech made them feel if that were relevant.
Thankfully, the Court of Appeal later points out that the standard for hate speech is strictly objective (i.e. not based on the subjective feelings of the target group). It is quite clear on this point and takes direct note of ARPA Canada’s submissions on it. However, the Court does not appear to apply this point directly to its assessment of the relevance and probative value of Dr. Mulé’s report. Rather, the Court suggests that evidence regarding the emotional distress the flyer may cause to gay men is necessary to establish the full context.
The Court of Appeal also found that Dr. Mulé’s evidence was needed to provide balance to Professor Farrow’s evidence:
“The religious explanation [provided by Professor Farrow] and scriptural content of the flyers were fully before the court, and the trial judge relied on it in assessing whether the flyer met the definition of hate speech. However, on the other side, the full extent of the hateful meaning and subtext of the flyer was not presented, and the court did not receive a proper explanation, supported by expert analysis, of how exactly the flyer constituted hate speech against gay men, in the broader social and historical context of tropes in anti-gay discrimination. For example, in relying on Professor Farrow’s evidence to conclude that “sodomite” is an insulting term only in some contexts, the trial judge provided a one-sided analysis of the specific words.”
The Court of Appeal also made certain conclusory statements about Professor Mulé’s evidence that seem inappropriate, given that the accuracy of Professor Mulé’s evidence was not tested before the Court of Appeal. For example, the Court comments, “Professor Mulé demonstrated that the respondent played on classic homophobic tropes such as that gay men are morally inferior, corrosive to Christian morals, dangerous to children, and therefore deserving of disease and suffering.” But it is debatable (at best) that Professor Mulé “demonstrated” that Whatcott did all of the above.
Professor Mulé’s report is especially troubling in its commentary regarding Christianity and homosexuality. He says that there is a range of views within Christianity, with “conservative denominations … utilizing a literal interpretation that opposes same-sex relations.” These denominations, he claims, create and perpetuate “an ‘immorality’ trope that discriminates against LGBT2-SQI communities.” Mulé puts “immorality” in quotes, of course, because he does not believe there is anything immoral about same-sex sexual relations. He also comments that Whatcott’s call for gay men to repent amounts to an accusation that they are sinners, which Mulé says “is both discriminatory and insensitive to the many religious members of LGBT2-SQI communities.” Mulé, who is not an expert on the Bible, Christianity, or ethics, purports to give an “expert” opinion on the meaning and implications not only of Whatcott’s flyer but of “conservative” Christian teaching on sexual morality.
ARPA Canada will find out in the next month whether Whatcott will appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada. If he does, ARPA Canada intends to intervene in that hearing too, DV.
Over the summer, ARPA Canada will be re-posting an old blog or article each Thursday. We hope that you enjoy these blasts from the past as we re-live some of the major content, issues, and campaigns of ARPA’s past 15 years.
The following article, written by Mark Penninga, was originally published in the Reformed Perspective Magazine and reposted on ARPA’s website in 2014. Given that three leaders and one interim leader of the Conservative Party have come and gone since then, with a new leader set to be announced in just a few weeks, the thought that we’d share this article noting the successes and failures of the last time there was Conservative government in Ottawa. What might we expect from a future Conservative government?
In a June 2011 article for Reformed Perspective I detailed 10 realistic goals that could be accomplished for our nation under this Conservative government if our leaders have the courage to lead and if citizens give them the encouragement and accountability to do so. Now that we are about halfway through this government’s mandate, how are we faring on these issues?
1. Give Aboriginals the responsibility and hope that belongs to all Canadians
Grade: B+
Not long after ARPA published a policy report on this issue in 2012, we were very encouraged to see the federal government announce a number of bills and policies to increase accountability, equality, and opportunity for Canada’s Aboriginal peoples. In June 2013, the First Nations Financial Transparency Act became law. Aboriginal MP Rob Clarke has also introduced a private member’s bill C-428 entitled the Indian Act Amendment and Replacement Act. And the government has also taken steps towards allowing private property ownership on reserves and increasing parental responsibility in education.
As encouraging as these changes are, they are small steps in light of the enormity of the problem. And given that the issue crosses into provincial responsibility, much more can also be done in having the provinces and federal government work towards a common vision.
2. Reform the Canadian Human Rights Commission
Grade: C-
In light of all the opposition from all sides of the political spectrum to problematic sections of the Canadian Human Rights Act, it is striking that it took a private member’s bill (Brian Storseth’s C-304) to finally abolish Section 13 in the summer of 2013.
This was a huge victory, but the current government can’t take much credit for it, apart from not actively opposing it. Much more can be done to reform or even abolish the Canadian Human Rights Commission.
Last week, the Conservative Party of Canada held its bi-annual policy convention. Due to COVID-19 gathering restrictions, this convention was held virtually, enabling a record number of delegates to attend this year.
Conventions are opportunities for members of political parties to come together, build the party, and prepare for the next election. At this virtual convention, delegates participated in campaign training, watched Conservative leader Erin O’Toole outline the party’s post-COVID-19 recovery plan, voted for national councillors (who help run and direct the party), voted on changes to the party constitution, and, perhaps most importantly, voted on amendments to the party’s policy handbook. This policy handbook describes the party’s official position on a wide variety of issues, although party leaders cherry-pick policies from the handbook (and elsewhere) for election campaigns.
Many pro-life, socially conservative, and/or Christian groups had high hopes that this convention would provide an opportunity to steer the Conservative party in a direction more in line with their views. Did it?
Here are the six most notable policies from the 2021 Conservative convention.
#1 Abortion
Local riding associations, called Electoral District Associations, or EDAs, sponsor policy proposals in preparation for the convention. Because hundreds of policies are proposed but only a select number (thirty this year) are debated at the convention, EDAs vote in advance on which proposed policies will go to the convention. A couple of policies addressing abortion were proposed, but none garnered enough votes from EDAs to advance to the general convention.
There is an alternative way for proposals to be debated at the convention. If delegates from 100 ridings propose an amendment “from the floor,” it normally will be debated like all the other proposals. Campaign Life Coalition gathered the required 100 signatures to bring a proposal on abortion to the convention. However, because the virtual format required the convention to operate differently than in past years, and because this alternative method of raising amendments applied only to constitutional amendments (not policy amendments), no proposal touching upon abortion was considered at the convention.
#2 Euthanasia
Prior to this convention, the Conservative party had a policy on euthanasia that read, “The Conservative Party will not support any legislation to legalize euthanasia or assisted suicide. The Conservative Party of Canada opposes the extension of euthanasia and assisted suicide (MAID) to minors, to people who are not competent, and people who live with psychological suffering.”
Due to the passage of Bill C-14 (medical assistance in dying) in 2016 and the imminent passage of Bill C-7 (medical assistance in dying), this policy was slightly out of date. The convention delegates voted – 75% for and 25% against – to update the policy on euthanasia to read, “In principle, the Conservative Party opposes euthanasia and assisted suicide. Furthermore, we oppose the extension of euthanasia and assisted suicide (MAID) to minors, to people who are not competent, and people who live with psychological suffering.” This rewording does not substantially change the Conservative party’s stance on euthanasia.
#3 Joint tax filing
The government currently taxes individual incomes, regardless of whether individuals are members of larger families, or whether one or both spouses earn income. This effectively penalizes families in which one spouse is the sole breadwinner in a family as that spouse’s income is taxed at a higher rate than if this income could be split or distributed with their spouse. The previous Conservative government had allowed income-splitting, but the Liberal government revoked this tax policy.
Although the Conservative policy handbook still supports the income-splitting policy, a new modification arose at this convention. This proposal would “permit spouses to electively report income on a joint or household basis so that progressive rates apply to income of families, rather than individuals, as the taxing unit.” Although income-splitting gave significant tax relief to families with one employed spouse and one stay-at-home spouse, it still focuses on individuals for taxation purposes. This policy proposed to fundamentally shift away from individuals as the basic unit of taxation and toward the family as the basic unit of taxation. Although the wording is ambiguous, this policy would potentially allow income not only to be split between spouses but also between children or grandparents in the same family.
Because of this ambiguity (and other reasons), the Conservative caucus (the Conservative MPs collectively) reluctantly urged delegates to vote against this modification. The convention delegates, however, passed it by an overwhelming margin (89% for and 11% against).
#4 Charities
Many charities and non-profit organizations have been hit hard by the COVID-19 pandemic and related restrictions. Not only have many seen their donations drop, but few were prioritized for re-opening as essential services. In response to this, one policy proposal was that “The Conservative Party recognizes that Canadian charities provide essential services to our communities and that they are well-equipped to enhance the well-being of our communities. As such, we believe that charitable donations should not receive any less favorable treatment than political donations.”
The thrust of this proposal is strongly supportive of charities (including churches), even though the policy proposal does not explain how this would actually work. Political contributions (at the federal level) are capped at $1275, but the tax credit ranges from 33%-75% of the contribution, depending on the size of the contribution. Charitable contributions (at the federal) are capped at 75% of your net income, but the tax credit only ranges from 15-33%. Despite the ambiguity of how this policy proposal would work in terms of the cap on donations or the size of the tax credit, it passed with 82% approval from delegates.
#5 Free speech on Canadian campuses
Over the past decade, concerns have been growing that the freedom of speech and expression have been curtailed on university campuses, particularly for pro-life clubs. A policy that would revoke federal funding to Canadian universities that limit freedom of expression was passed by 88% of delegates at the Conservative convention.
#6 Hate speech
In 2014, Parliament removed Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act which prohibited hate speech in Canada. ARPA had supported this deletion of Canada’s federal hate speech law because it infringed on legitimate free speech and because it was unfairly used to target Christian speech. Although this federal hate speech provision no longer exists, the Conservative’s policy handbook stated that “we support legislation to remove authority from the Canadian Human Rights Commission and the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal to regulate, receive, investigate or adjudicate complaints related to section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act.” One policy proposal – likely proposed as a housekeeping measure – was to delete this policy, but it was narrowly rejected (50.6% opposed and 49.4% in favour). This leaves a redundancy in the Conservative party’s policy handbook, but underlines the party’s continuing opposition to federal hate speech codes.
Conclusion
This Conservative convention gave thousands of Canadians the opportunity to shape the future of this federal political party, and other federal parties are preparing for (virtual) conventions as well. The Christian Heritage Party is hosting a virtual conference on March 27th. The Liberal party is convening on April 9-10 and the New Democratic Party is convening on April 9-11. (Neither the Green Party nor the People’s Party have scheduled conventions to date.)
Although ARPA is non-partisan, we always encourage individual Christians to be partisan. Being a member of a political party gives you an amplified voice in crafting the policies of the party and nominating Christians within that party. Join whatever political party best represents your values and get involved.
In 2020 we saw bus ads go back up in London after they were taken down due to an incoherent Ad Standards decisions. We hope this story inspires you to continue to use what freedom you have.
Pastor David Lynn again faces controversy for street preaching, opposing public funding for an abortion clinic in New Brunswick, do we prevent or assist suicide? We must care not kill!, and the worldview dilemma behind conversion therapy bans.
By Levi Minderhoud
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wYdmxM5_pn0&ab_channel=christsforgiveness
David Lynn has come to British Columbia. Kicking off his national tour, the street preacher from Christ’s Forgiveness Ministries wandered the thoroughfares of Victoria and Vancouver last week, preaching the truth of Scripture with a microphone in hand and a stereo speaker at his side. A scene like this is bound to attract some attention. Sadly, the attention of our LGBTQ-fixated society has been universally negative. This reaction underscores the need for Christians to proclaim and live the gospel.
Last year on Fall Tour we touched on pastor David Lynn’s story, how he was criminally charged for preaching in Toronto’s LGBTQ2+ neighbourhood. Although the criminal charges were eventually dropped as unfounded, Pastor Lynn continues to face strong opposition today.
That opposition was made crystal clear by recent media headlines sparked by his preaching in Vancouver. Major news organizations – CBC News, Global News, CTV News, CHEK News, and News 1130 – all released headlines about how the “anti-gay” and “anti-LGBTQ2+” preacher was preaching “hate” and “anti-gay rhetoric.” Vancouver mayor Kennedy Stewart even proposed a “bubble zone” that would exclude street preachers from the city.
All of these articles lack any reference to what David Lynn actually preached. Not a single quote substantiates the label of “anti-gay” or the accusation that he is targeting LGBTQ2+ people. Not one. Each article simply repeats that label and that accusation, as if repetition makes it true.
Watch any portion of the video above. In most of his preaching, Lynn convicts both Christians and non-Christians alike of their sinfulness. In some instances, he identifies specific sins – such as drunkenness, idolatry, witchcraft, premarital sexual activity, orgies, uncommitted relationships – but his message is not exclusively directed any one of these sins. He preaches the necessity of being forgiven from all sins.
David Lynn’s true crime is not that he is anti-gay. His true crime is that he is a Christian preacher. He serves up a hearty bowl of the gospel, seasoned with passion and conviction. He declares that “all have sinned and have fallen short of the glory of God” and that the “wages of sin is death.” Society must “repent and believe” in Jesus Christ. In a society that is fixated on LGBTQ2+ issues, the comprehensive message of the gospel is indispensable for the forgiveness of all sins.
Our Canadian society is indeed transfixed on questions of sexuality and gender. A street preacher proclaims the gospel and what conclusion does society draw? “He’s spreading anti-gay rhetoric,” society claims. A politician refuses to walk in a pride parade? “What’s wrong with him?” our culture asks. Christian oppose the installation of a rainbow crosswalk or the flying of a rainbow flag? “Christians hate and oppress gay people” is a popular reply.
This reaction should not surprise Christians. Paul explains that the gospel is offensive to some, even the basic message that God loves you and came to save you. Paul outlines that the gospel is offensive to the world is that it sheds light on sin. Without the light of the law, people do not know their sin (Romans 7:7-10). In the video above, Lynn states bluntly that the world is afraid of the gospel, hates it, and opposes it at every turn. The fact that society reacts so strongly against the preaching of David Lynn is a tell-tale sign that Canada is a prime mission field in urgent need of the full message of the gospel! Christians, rather than being transfixed on these sexual issues, must fixate on the gospel and support preachers like David Lynn to boldly shed a light on a world bathed in darkness.
Levi Minderhoud is the British Columbia Manager for ARPA Canada
The Crown withdrew its criminal charges against David Lynn today, almost a year after he was arrested while street preaching in Toronto’s “gay village” at the opening of “Pride Month”.
This case was politically charged from the outset. Lynn had been charged with two criminal offences: mischief and causing a disturbance. The entire incident was video recorded, however, and it quickly came to light that these charges were dubious at best. ARPA Canada’s Law and Policy Director reviewed that video last summer and wrote about the case on ARPA’s blog. At a procedural hearing in the case last fall, the judge expressed doubt about the Crown’s case. Yet the Crown persisted until today.
Officer Jim Gotell told media that Lynn and others with him were “making comments that were disparaging towards the LGBTQ community.” Officer Gotell noted that “hate crime investigators are going to be reviewing what was said today to determine if additional charges could be laid.” No such charges were added.
In October, 2019, ARPA Canada applied to intervene in the case. We argued that the criminal offences of “mischief” and “causing a disturbance” must be interpreted in a sufficiently precise, predictable, and intelligible manner to satisfy constitutional scrutiny, and must be interpreted in a manner that respects freedom of expression and assembly. We also emphasized the importance of interpreting these offences in their historical and statutory context, in which they form part of a list of “Disorderly Conduct” offences that include public nudity, trespassing at night, and disrupting a religious worship service.
Christian Legal Fellowship also applied to intervene in the case and submitted further constitutional arguments. There were no other intervenors.
Defence counsel for David Lynn had filed a Charter application on Lynn’s behalf seeking to have the charges removed and seeking damages for the infringement of Lynn’s Charter rights. The Crown submitted a written response to this application, but this matter never proceeded to a hearing and was never resolved.
The Crown informed us that, although in its view the arrest was reasonable, it has now concluded that it has no reasonable prospect of convicting David Lynn, so the Crown is dropping its case. Given the Crown’s knowledge of the exonerating video footage from the outset, ARPA’s Legal Counsel thinks the Crown’s decision to lay charges may have been intended to placate those offended by Mr. Lynn’s street preaching, which would be improper.
Where does this leave us? The criminal case against Lynn for the June 2019 episode is over, and with it Lynn’s Charter application in response. We do not know whether David Lynn will launch a civil action against the Toronto Police for his arrest.
Quarantine haircuts, radio ads in Vancouver, webinar update and some odd winter attire.