June 15, 2017:  In a tiny Ottawa courtroom, a jurisdiction hearing is held.  The case considered in the hearing is a complicated mix of advertising regulations, municipal advertising contracts, religious privilege, discriminatory government funding practices and most essentially of all, the freedom of expression.  The case is further complicated by a span of more than two thousand kilometers and a provincial boundary.

A jurisdiction hearing is a legal process to determine the appropriate Court for consideration of a legal matter.  In Canada, different types of courts each have their own jurisdiction (see Department of Justice for more information).  Resolution of any legal dispute is initially a matter of determining the appropriate Court.

In that little Ottawa courtroom, aOutline of Canada's Court System legal fight to defend a fundamental human right is tentatively underway; a variety of subtleties, complexities and barriers presented by legal process can suddenly and unexpectedly become significant considerations. What if the appropriate Court for the case is located two thousand kilometers from home?

Going into the room, the complainant understands that there are two probable outcomes of the hearing: the case will be considered a matter for a court in either Ontario or Manitoba.  A decision for Ontario might, logistically, be easier to manage.  It’s always convenient to be close to home.  In addition, the content of the dispute, advertising material relating to the funding of Catholic schools in Ontario, would also be highly topical to an Ontario court and local media.  Alternatively, a decision that the case should be heard in Manitoba might, strategically, be preferable as well.  Given the location of Canada’s Museum of Human Rights and that same local topicality of the subject matter – being a bit further from home could be a benefit.cropped ad2 small

In the end, the decision was that the appropriate Court to hear the case would be based in Winnipeg, Manitoba.  Leaving the courtroom, the complainant now knows where, and how, his rights must be defended.



2 thoughts on “Defending a Fundamental Freedom: Location, location, location

  1. I wish Richard Thain and his team the best of luck with his case. The continued practice of public funding for Roman-Catholic schools in Ontario, despite the fact that the International Human Rights court in Geneva has condemned it as a violation of human rights, is an outrage. The sooner it is stopped the better, especially for the children who are forced to attend these schools where they are brainwashed by a religious elite whose convictions went to the garbage dump of history at least two centuries ago. Practice at home what you wish, but keep the public arena clear of religious discrimination – and I thank you for defending my right to say so!


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s