Owens v. Human Rights Commission (Sask.) et al., 2006 SKCA 41

• Judge: Sherstobitoff, Richards and Smith, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Saskatchewan)
• Case Date: September 15, 2005
• Jurisdiction: Saskatchewan
• Citations: 2006 SKCA 41;(2006), 279 Sask.R. 161 (CA)

Owens v. HRC (2006), 279 Sask.R. 161 (CA);

    372 W.A.C. 161

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2006] Sask.R. TBEd. MY.041

Hugh Owens (appellant) v. Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission (respondent) and Gens Hellquist Jason Roy and Jeff Dodds (respondents) and Saskatchewan Human Rights Board of Inquiry Valerie G. Watson (respondent) and Sterling Newspapers Company operating as the Starphoenix (respondent) and Canadian Civil Liberties Association (intervener) and Canadian Religious Freedom Alliance (intervener)

(No. 678; 2006 SKCA 41)

Indexed As: Owens v. Human Rights Commission (Sask.) et al.

Saskatchewan Court of Appeal

Sherstobitoff, Richards and Smith, JJ.A.

April 13, 2006.

Summary:

Owens advertised for sale certain bumper stickers. The Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission found that the stickers exposed homosexuals to hatred or ridicule contrary to s. 14(1) of the Saskatchewan Human Rights Code. Owens appealed.

The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, in a decision reported at 228 Sask.R. 148, dismissed the appeal. Owens appealed.

The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal allowed the appeal.

Civil Rights - Topic 345

Freedom of conscience and religion - Exercise of - Restrictions - Section 14(1)(b) of the Saskatchewan Human Rights Code provided that "No person shall publish or display, or cause or permit to be published or displayed, on any lands or premises or in a newspaper, through a television or radio broadcasting station or any other broadcasting device, or in any printed matter or publication or by means of any other medium that the person owns, controls, distributes or sells, any representation, including any notice, sign, symbol, emblem, article, statement or other representation: that exposes or tends to expose to hatred, ridicules, belittles or otherwise affronts the dignity of any person or class of persons on the basis of a prohibited ground." - The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal held that s. 14(1)(b) was a justifiable limit on religiously inspired speech under s. 1 of the Charter - See paragraphs 54 to 57.

Civil Rights - Topic 1860.2

Freedom of speech or expression - Limitations on - Hate messages and literature - [See Civil Rights - Topic 345 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 1860.2

Freedom of speech or expression - Limitations on - Hate messages and literature - Section 14(1)(b) of the Saskatchewan Human Rights Code provided that "No person shall publish or display, or cause or permit to be published or displayed, on any lands or premises or in a newspaper, through a television or radio broadcasting station or any other broadcasting device, or in any printed matter or publication or by means of any other medium that the person owns, controls, distributes or sells, any representation, including any notice, sign, symbol, emblem, article, statement or other representation: that exposes or tends to expose to hatred, ridicules, belittles or otherwise affronts the dignity of any person or class of persons on the basis of a prohibited ground." - The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal discussed the meaning and scope of s. 14(1)(b) - See paragraphs 40 to 44.

Civil Rights - Topic 1860.2

Freedom of speech or expression - Limitations on - Hate messages and literature - Owens advertised for sale certain bumper stickers - The left side of the stickers referenced four Bible passages (e.g., "Leviticus 20:13") - Leviticus 20:13 suggested that if a man lies with a man as he would a woman they must be put to death - There was an equal sign (=) in the middle of the sticker - The right side depicted two men holding hands with a "not allowed" symbol superimposed over top (red circle with a diagonal bar) - The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal held that the stickers did not expose homosexuals to hatred or ridicule contrary to s. 14(1)(b) of the Saskatchewan Human Rights Code - See paragraphs 58 to 87.

Civil Rights - Topic 7115

Federal, provincial or territorial legislation - Practice - Judicial review (incl. standard of review) - Owens advertised for sale certain bumper stickers - The left side of the stickers referenced four Bible passages (e.g., "Leviticus 20:13") - Leviticus 20:13 suggested that if a man lies with a man as he would a woman they must be put to death - There was an equal sign (=) in the middle of the sticker - The right side depicted two men holding hands with a "not allowed" symbol superimposed over top (red circle with a diagonal bar) - The Court of Queen's Bench affirmed the Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission's finding that the stickers exposed homosexuals to hatred or ridicule contrary to s. 14(1)(b) of Saskatchewan's Human Rights Code - The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal held that a correctness standard of review applied to the issues raised in the case - See paragraphs 30 to 39.

Civil Rights - Topic 8348

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Application - Exceptions - Reasonable limits prescribed by law (Charter, s. 1) - [See Civil Rights - Topic 345 ].

Cases Noticed:

Human Rights Commission (Sask.) v. Bell, [1994] 5 W.W.R. 460 (Sask. C.A.), appld. [para. 21].

Human Rights Commission (Sask.) v. Engineering Students' Society, University of Saskatchewan (1989), 72 Sask.R. 161; 56 D.L.R.(4th) 604 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 24].

Farm Credit Corp. v. Valley Beef Producers Co-operative Ltd. et al., [2002] 11 W.W.R. 587; 223 Sask.R. 236; 277 W.A.C. 236 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 29].

Trinity Western University et al. v. College of Teachers (B.C.) et al., [2001] 1 S.C.R. 772; 269 N.R. 1; 151 B.C.A.C. 161; 249 W.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 29].

Pushpanathan v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1998] 1 S.C.R. 982, addendum [1998] 1 S.C.R. 1222; 226 N.R. 201, refd to. [para. 31].

Dr. Q. v. College of Physicians and Surgeons (B.C.) - see Dr. Q., Re.

Dr. Q., Re, [2003] 1 S.C.R. 226; 302 N.R. 34; 179 B.C.A.C. 170; 295 W.A.C. 170; 2003 SCC 19, refd to. [para. 31].

Gould v. Yukon Order of Pioneers, Dawson Lodge No. 1 et al., [1996] 1 S.C.R. 571; 194 N.R. 81; 72 B.C.A.C. 1; 119 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 38].

Canada (Attorney General) v. Mossop, [1993] 1 S.C.R. 554; 149 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 38].

University of British Columbia v. Berg, [1993] 2 S.C.R. 353; 152 N.R. 99; 26 B.C.A.C. 241; 44 W.A.C. 241, refd to. [para. 38].

R. v. Big M Drug Mart Ltd., [1985] 1 S.C.R. 295; 58 N.R. 81; 60 A.R. 161, refd to. [para. 41].

R. v. Zundel (No. 2), [1992] 2 S.C.R. 731; 140 N.R. 1; 56 O.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 44].

Rizzo & Rizzo Shoes Ltd. (Bankrupt), Re, [1998] 1 S.C.R. 27; 221 N.R. 241; 106 O.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 44].

Taylor and Western Guard Party v. Canadian Human Rights Commission, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 892; 117 N.R. 191, refd to. [para. 45].

Multani v. Commission scolaire Marguerite-Bourgeoys et al. (2006), 345 N.R. 201; 2006 SCC 6, refd to. [para. 55].

Syndicat Northcrest v. Amselem et al., [2004] 2 S.C.R. 551; 323 N.R. 59, refd to. [para. 56].

Ross v. New Brunswick School District No. 15 - see Attis v. Board of Education of District 15 et al.

Attis v. Board of Education of District No. 15 et al., [1996] 1 S.C.R. 825; 195 N.R. 81; 171 N.B.R.(2d) 321; 437 A.P.R. 321, refd to. [para. 57].

Egan and Nesbit v. Canada, [1995] 2 S.C.R. 513; 182 N.R. 161, refd to. [para. 65].

N.W. et al. v. Canada (Attorney General) et al. (2004), 255 Sask.R. 298; 246 D.L.R.(4th) 345 (Q.B. Fam. Div.), refd to. [para. 66].

Reference Re Same-Sex Marriage, [2004] 3 S.C.R. 698; 328 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 66].

Statutes Noticed:

Saskatchewan Human Rights Code, S.S. 1979, c. S-24.1, sect. 14(1)(b) [para. 10].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Scroggs, R., The New Testament and Homosexuality (1983), pp. 7 to 16 [para. 80].

Counsel:

Hugh Owens, present without counsel;

Milton Woodard, Q.C., for the Sask. Human Rights Commission, Gens Hellquist and Jeff Dodds;

Andrew Lokan and Louis Browne, for the Canadian Civil Liberties Association;

Thomas Schuck and Janet Buckingham, for the Canadian Religious Freedom Alliance.

This appeal was heard on September 15, 2005, by Sherstobitoff, Richards and Smith, JJ.A., of the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal. Richards, J.A., delivered the following decision for the court on April 13, 2006.