Committee for the Commonwealth of Canada et al. v. Canada, (1986) 1 F.T.R. 71 (TD)

• Judge: Dube, J.
• Court: Federal Court (Canada)
• Case Date: December 10, 1985
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1986), 1 F.T.R. 71 (TD)

Com. for the Commonwealth v. Can. (1986), 1 F.T.R. 71 (TD)

MLB headnote and full text

Comite Pour La Republique Du Canada - Committee for the Commonwealth of Canada, Francois Lepine and Christiane Deland, Parti De La Republique Du Canada v. Her Majesty in Right of Canada

Indexed As: Committee for the Commonwealth of Canada et al. v. Canada

Federal Court of Canada

Trial Division

Dube, J.

January 6, 1986.

Summary:

Members of the Committee for the Commonwealth of Canada, went to Montreal International Airport (Dorval) to tell members of the public and discuss with them the aims and objectives of the committee. The assistant-manager of the airport told them they had no right to engage in politics in the airport. The committee and others commenced an action for a declaration that the areas at Dorval constituted a public forum where fundamental freedoms could be exercised. The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, allowed the committee's action and granted the declaration.

Civil Rights - Topic 1806

Freedom of speech or expression - General Principles - Public forum - What constitutes - Airport terminals - The Federal Court, Trial Division, held that the public terminal con courses in Canadian airports are public places wherein the public may, subject to reasonable limits, exercise its right of freedom of expression guaranteed by s. 2(b) of the Charter to peacefully disseminate their political, religious or other beliefs - The court therefore declared that the committee for the Commonwealth of Canada had a right to communicate with members of the public and discuss with them the objectives of the committee in Dorval Airport.

Cases Noticed:

Hague, Major et al. v. Committee for Industrial Organization et al., (1939), 59 S. Ct. 954, folld. [para. 12].

Murdock v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (1943), 63 S. Ct. 870, folld. [para. 13].

Kuszynski et al. v. City of Oakland (1973), 479 F.(2d) 1131, folld. [para. 14].

Chicago Area Military v. City of Chicago (1975), 508 F.(2d) 921, folld. [para. 15].

Krishna Consciousness et al. v. Martin J. Griffin (1977), 437 F. Supp. 666, folld. [para. 16].

International Society for Krishna Consciousness, Inc. v. Michael W. Wolke et al. (1978), 453 F. Supp. 869, [para. 17].

Rosen v. Port of Portland et al. (1981), 641 F.(2d) 1243, folld. [para. 18].

Fernandes v. Limmer (1981), 663 F.(2d) 619, folld. [para. 19].

U.S. Southwest et al. v. United States of America, et al. (1983), 708 F.(2d) 760, folld. [para. 20].

Saumur v. City of Quebec, [1953] 2 S.C.R. 299, refd to. [para. 22].

Statutes Noticed:

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1, 2(b).

United States Constitution, First and Fourteenth Amendments [para. 11].

Counsel:

Appearances: Gerard Guay, for the plaintiffs;

Marie Nichols, for the defendant.

Solicitors of Record:

Gerard Guay, Hull, Quebec, for the plaintiffs;

Frank Iacobucci, Deputy Attorney General of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, for the defendant.

This case was heard on December 10, 1985, at Montreal, Quebec, before Dubé, J., of the Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, who delivered the following decision on January 6, 1986: