Final - Ward

Question 1

Ward v Quebec - summary

Answer 1

• Ward: comedian performed shows mocking Gabriel, a young singer with Treacher Collins syndrome
• Gabriel: filed complaint of discrimination of disability
• Quebec Tribunal fined Ward for $35,000 and the QC Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.

Question 2

Ward - SCC Ruling

Answer 2

majority: ruled in favour of Ward, made distinction that discrimination does not equate to defamation

minority: reading in a priori power hierarchy (moral framework) allows political actors to use discriminatory laws as a tool for censorship and threatens rule of law

Question 3

discrimination v. defamation

Answer 3

discrimination: differential treatment of protected class

defamation: damage to reputation

Question 4

a priori

Answer 4

meaning that a concept/circumstance is considered to be true without empirical experience or observation (basically, based on assumption)

Question 5

Quebec Charter - S. 10

Answer 5

every person has a right to full/equal recognition and exercise of human rights/freedoms without exclusion based on x… discrimination exists where the distinction of x has the effect of impairing such right.

requires a plaintiff to prove that such discrimination affects them differently than it would someone else.

limits expression on the grounds of discriminatory harassment/advertisement, issuing punitive damages (fines)

** QC Human Rights Tribunal does not possess the power to decide actions in defamation/other civil liability actions

Question 6

elements of discrimination (plaintiff must show…)

Answer 6

1. distinction - exclusion or preference based on a trait/quality
2. …based on one of the prohibited grounds of discrimination - a protected class (marginalized group)
3. …and has the effect of impairing the right to full/equal recognition and exercise of a human right or freedom.

Question 7

elements of discrimination - applied to case

Answer 7

1. distinction - YES, Ward did make a distinction of Gabriel
2. based on a prohibited ground - NO, he was selected for his public persona, not his disability.

** the court emphasized freedom of expression (especially in artistic contexts) and gave caution against confusing offensive speech with truly discriminatory conduct.

Question 8

issues with the dissent (arguments against)

Answer 8

1. equating speech with conduct claims that words may be as harmful as physical actions, blurring lines of expression and actual, direct harm.
2. ignoring context misrepresents the speakers intentions and ignores the detestation/vilification criteria of harmful hate speech
3. prioritizing subjective feelings over objective standards allows individual sensitivities to over-censor/regulate speech, which undermines freedom of expression. plus, it could be weaponized to censor specific types of speech (think right-wing suppression in Marcuse)