Religious Freedom on Trial: Upcoming Court Battles and Legislative Changes Challenge Canadian Charter Rights

This month, Canadian courts are set to hear several significant cases involving the issue of religious freedom, each with the potential for far-reaching consequences. At the same time, Bill C-9 is advancing through Parliament, where its final form could substantially affect the future of freedom of speech and religion in Canada.

Christian Heritage Party vs. City of Hamilton

On Feb. 3, 2026, the Christian Heritage Party (CHP) is scheduled to appear before the Ontario Court of Appeal. The case stems from a 2024 decision that upheld the City of Hamilton’s right to remove a political advertisement from its transit system.

The advertisement in question was brief. It contained the words “Woman: An Adult Female,” along with the party’s logo and website. The City of Hamilton removed the ad shortly after it was posted, citing its “open and inclusive city” policy. City officials argued that the message could be seen as harmful or offensive to the transgender community and that it violated the city’s standard for a safe environment on public transit.

In the initial 2024 court ruling, the judge sided with the city. The court found that the city’s decision to prioritize “inclusion” was a reasonable limit on the CHP’s right to free expression. This ruling was a departure from a 2018 case, where the CHP successfully sued the city over the removal of a similar advertisement. In that case, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice found that the City of Hamilton acted unreasonably when it removed the CHP’s bus shelter advertisements in August 2016.

The upcoming appeal is a test of whether a municipal government has the authority to act as a censor of biological definitions or political platforms. The CHP argues that the city’s actions infringe upon Section 2(b) of the Charter, which guarantees freedom of thought, belief, and expression.

The Harvest Ministries Case

From Feb. 23 to 25, the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms (JCCF) will be in a Quebec City courtroom representing the non-profit Harvest Ministries International (HMI). This case involves the 2023 cancellation of its 10-day “Faith, Fire, and Freedom” rally, which included  large-scale prayer meetings, musical performances, and presentations.

The event was scheduled to take place at a government-owned convention centre but was cancelled by Quebec’s minister of tourism just weeks before it was set to begin. Then-Tourism Minister Caroline Proulx said the organization’s pro-life values countered the Quebec government’s goal of making the procedure more easily available, and that events that are directly opposed to government values and the “fundamental principles” of the state could not take place in convention centres that are managed by the province.

Like the CHP case, the Harvest Ministries litigation focuses on whether the state can deny access to public spaces based on the religious or political content of an organization’s message. The two cases indicate a growing trend where Canadian institutions are using “inclusive values” in legal arguments to challenge traditional viewpoints.

Legislative Shifts: Bill C-9 and the ‘Religious Defence’

While these battles play out in the courts, the federal government is pursuing legislative changes that would alter the Criminal Code of Canada when it comes hate crimes. Bill C-9, also known as the Combatting Hate Act, is currently moving through Parliament with significant amendments that sparked criticism among legal scholars and faith leaders, such as the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops.

One of the most controversial developments occurred on Dec. 9, 2025, when a parliamentary committee voted to adopt a proposed Bloc Québécois amendment which seeks to remove Section 319(3)(b) from the Criminal Code.

Section 319(3)(b) currently provides a “religious defence” against charges of inciting or promoting hatred. It states that no person shall be convicted of a hate speech offence if, in good faith, they expressed or attempted to establish by argument an opinion on a religious subject, or an opinion based on a belief in a religious text.

The argument is that removing this section would mean a person could face criminal charges for quoting a passage from, for example, the Bible, the Torah, or the Quran, if that passage is deemed “hateful” by current standards.

How Bill C-9 will ultimately be finalized is still in flux, and the government has said the removal would not criminalize normal religious practice.

Furthermore, Bill C-9 introduces a statutory definition of “hatred.” The bill defines it as an emotion that involves “detestation or vilification” and is “stronger than disdain or dislike.” Critics argue that this definition remains highly subjective. Under this new framework, the threshold for what constitutes criminal speech is lowered, and the specific protection for religious sincerity is discarded.