R. v. Keegstra (J.), (1988) 87 A.R. 177 (CA)

• Judge: Kerans, Stevenson and Irving, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Alberta)
• Case Date: June 06, 1988
• Citations: (1988), 87 A.R. 177 (CA);1988 ABCA 234;[1988] 5 WWR 211;60 Alta LR (2d) 1;87 AR 177;43 CCC (3d) 150;65 CR (3d) 289;157 CLR 424;39 CRR 5

R. v. Keegstra (J.) (1988), 87 A.R. 177 (CA)

MLB headnote and full text

Her Majesty The Queen v. James Keegstra

(Appeal Nos. 17699; 17701)

Indexed As: R. v. Keegstra (J.)

Alberta Court of Appeal

Kerans, Stevenson and Irving, JJ.A.

June 6, 1988.

Summary:

The accused was charged under s. 281.2(2) of the Criminal Code with communicating statements wilfully promoting hatred against an identifiable group (Jews). The accused applied to strike down s. 281.2(2) on the ground that it violated the right to freedom of expression under s. 2(b) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, in a judgment reported at paragraphs 109 to 241 below, dismissed the application. The court held that s. 281.2(2) did not violate s. 2(b) and, alternatively, if it did, it would be a reasonable limit prescribed by law under s. 1 of the Charter. The accused was subsequently convicted following trial by judge and jury. The accused appealed.

The Alberta Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, quashed the conviction and declared that s. 281.2(2) was of no force and effect pursuant to s. 52(1) of the Constitution Act. The court held that s. 281.2(2), as presently worded, violated the freedom of expression (s. 2(b)) and the presumption of innocence (s. 11(b)). The court held that s. 281.2(2) was overly broad and therefore not a reasonable limit prescribed by law under s. 1.

Civil Rights - Topic 1860.2

Freedom of speech or expression - Limitations on - Hate messages and literature - Section 281.2(2) of the Criminal Code made it an offence to communicate statements wilfully promoting hatred of an identifiable group - The Alberta Court of Appeal held that s. 281.2(2) violated the right to freedom of expression under s. 2(b) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms - The court held that although freedom of expression did not extend to all speech (e.g. calculated lies), it did protect "innocent errors" and "imprudent speech" - Imprudent speech occurred where a person made a statement not known to be false, but was blameworthy in that he failed to take reasonable steps to discover whether the statement was true or not - Section 281.2(2) violated s. 2(b), where it made imprudent speech an offence - See paragraphs 30 to 41.

Civil Rights - Topic 4945

Presumption of innocence - Evidence and proof - Reverse onus provisions - Section 281.2(2) of the Criminal Code made it an offence to communicate statements wilfully promoting hatred of an identifiable group - Section 281.2(3) precluded conviction where the accused "establishes" the statements were true - The Alberta Court of Appeal held that "establishes" required an accused to prove his defence on a balance of probabilities and not just to raise a reasonable doubt - Therefore, a jury was bound to convict even if they had a reasonable doubt respecting the accused's defence - The Alberta Court of Appeal held that it was clear that the presumption of innocence (s. 11(d)) was breached where an accused had to disprove "the existence of a presumed fact which is an important element of the offence" - The court held that s. 11(d) equally applied to reverse onus defences, because "defences" remains the absence of the proof of guilt and when relevant must be negatived beyond a reasonable doubt - The court held that s. 281.2(2) violated s. 11(d) - See paragraphs 11 to 24.

Civil Rights - Topic 8348

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Application - Exceptions - Reasonable limits prescribed by law - Section 281.2(2) of the Criminal Code made it an offence to communicate statements wilfully promoting hatred of an identifiable group - Section 281.2(3) precluded conviction where the accused "establishes" the statements were true - "Establishes" meant prove on a balance of probabilities - The Alberta Court of Appeal held that s. 281.2(2) violated the presumption of innocence under s. 11(d) - The court held that the limit on s. 11(d) was not a reasonable limit prescribed by law under s. 1 of the Charter, because the purpose of relieving the Crown of having to prove a negative by virtue of s. 281.2(3) justified a shift in the evidentiary burden, but did not justify shifting the burden of proof to the accused - See paragraphs 25 to 29.

Civil Rights - Topic 8348

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Application - Exceptions - Reasonable limits prescribed by law - Section 281.2(2) of the Criminal Code made it an offence to communicate statements wilfully promoting hatred of an identifiable group - The Alberta Court of Appeal held that s. 281.2(2) violated freedom of expression under s. 2(b) of the Charter - The court held that s. 281.2(2) was not a reasonable limit prescribed by law under s. 1 of the Charter, because it failed the proportionality test - The court held that the objective of s. 281.2(2), the protection of identifiable groups from serious nonphysical and reputational injury, was a valid objective and sufficiently important to warrant overriding the constitutional right to freedom of expression - The court held there also existed a logical connection between the purpose of s. 281.2(2) and the means chosen - However, s. 281.2(2) was too broad, in that it allowed conviction of persons who caused no harm or risk of harm notwithstanding that the objective of s. 281.2(2) was not that broad - See paragraphs 42 to 98.

Civil Rights - Topic 8380.2

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Denial of rights - Remedies - Declaration of statute invalidity - Section 281.2(2) of the Criminal Code made it an offence to communicate statements wilfully promoting hatred of an identifiable group - Section 281.2(3) precluded conviction where the accused established the statement was true - The Alberta Court of Appeal held that s. 281.2(2) denied the right to freedom of expression and the right to be presumed innocent (Charter, ss. 2(b), 11(d)), and was not a reasonable limit prescribed by law under s. 1 - The court held that this was not a case where a constitutional exemption or straightforward reading down would resolve the problem - The court therefore declared under s. 52(1) of the Constitution Act that s. 281.2(2) was of no force and effect - See paragraph 105.

Criminal Law - Topic 1550

Hate propaganda - Communicating statements wilfully promoting hatred - Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1970, c. C-34, s. 281.2(2) - Section 281.2(2) made it an offence to communicate statements wilfully promoting hatred of an identifiable group - Section 281.2(3) precluded conviction where the accused "establishes" the statement was true - The Alberta Court of Appeal held that s. 281.2(2) was of no force and effect, because it violated the freedom of expression and the presumption of innocence (Charter, ss. 2(b), 11(d)) and was not a reasonable limit prescribed by law under s. 1.

Words and Phrases

Establishes - Section 281.2(3) of the Criminal Code precluded a conviction for wilfully promoting hatred where the accused "establishes" the statement in issue was true - The Alberta Court of Appeal held that "establishes" meant prove on a balance of probabilities.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Appleby, [1972] S.C.R. 303; [1971] 4 W.W.R. 601; 21 D.L.R.(3d) 325; 16 C.R.N.S. 35; 3 C.C.C.(2d) 354, refd to. [para. 12].

R. v. Shelley, [1981] 2 S.C.R. 196; 9 Sask.R. 338; [1981] 5 W.W.R. 481; 123 D.L.R.(3d) 748; 37 N.R. 320; 21 C.R.(3d) 354; 26 C.R.(3d) 150; 59 C.C.C.(2d) 292; 3 C.E.R. 217, refd to. [para. 12].

R. v. Oakes, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 103; 53 O.R.(2d) 719; 26 D.L.R.(4th) 200; 65 N.R. 87; 14 O.A.C. 335; 50 C.R.(3d) 1; 24 C.C.C.(3d) 321, refd to. [paras. 14, 83].

R. v. Driscoll (1987), 79 A.R. 298; 60 C.R.(3d) 88 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 14].

R. v. Singh (L.D.) (1987), 83 A.R. 69 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 14].

R. v. Holmes (1983), 41 O.R.(2d) 250; 145 D.L.R.(3d) 689; 32 C.R.(3d) 322; 4 C.C.C.(3d) 400; 4 C.R.R. 222 (Ont. C.A.), affd. (1988), 85 N.R. 21 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 15].

Edmonton Journal v. Alberta (Attorney General), [1987] 5 W.W.R. 385; 78 A.R. 375 (C.A.), leave to appeal granted 83 A.R. 160 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 33].

Grier v. Alberta Optometric Association et al., [1987] 5 W.W.R. 539; 76 A.R. 36 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 33].

R. v. Zundel (1987), 18 O.A.C. 161; 35 D.L.R.(4th) 338; 31 C.C.C.(3d) 97; 56 C.R.(3d) 1 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 34].

R. v. Rocher (1984), 55 A.R. 387 (N.W.T.C.A.), refd to. [para. 47].

Black et al. v. Law Society of Alberta, [1986] 3 W.W.R. 590; 68 A.R. 259; 44 Alta. L.R.(2d) 1 (C.A.), refd to. [paras. 49, 179].

Quebec Association of Protestant Schools et al. v. Attorney General of Quebec et al., [1984] 2 S.C.R. 66; 54 N.R. 196, refd to. [para. 49].

Dolphin Delivery Ltd. v. Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union, Local 580 (1986), 71 N.R. 83; 33 D.L.R.(4th) 175 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 59].

Dowding v. Ockery, [1962] W.A.R. 110, refd to. [para. 61].

Village of Skokie v. National Socialist Party of America; Collin v. Smith (1978), 69 Ill. 2d 605; 373 N.E. 2d 21; 578 F.R. 2d 1197, refd to. [para. 71].

Handyside v. United Kingdom (1976), 1 E.H.R.R. 737, refd to. [para. 77].

R. v. Jahelka; R. v. Stagnitta (1987), 79 A.R. 44; 54 Alta. L.R.(2d) 1, refd to. [para. 82].

Reference Re Section 94(2) of the Motor Vehicle Act (B.C.), [1985] 2 S.C.R. 486; 63 N.R. 266, refd to. [para. 91].

R. v. Smith (E.D.) (1987), 75 N.R. 321 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 91].

R. v. Vaillancourt (1987), 81 N.R. 115 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 91].

R. v. Jones, [1986] 2 S.C.R. 284; 69 N.R. 241; 73 A.R. 133, refd to. [para. 96].

Gouriet v. Union of Postal Workers, [1978] A.C. 445, refd to. [para. 96].

R. v. Buzzanga and Durocher (1970), 49 C.C.C.(2d) 369, refd to. [para. 104].

Switzman v. Elbling and Attorney General of Quebec (1957), 117 C.C.C. 129; 7 D.L.R.(2d) 337; [1957] S.C.R. 285, refd to. [para. 120].

Alberta Legislation, Re, [1938] 2 D.L.R. 81; [1938] S.C.R. 100, refd to. [para. 125].

National Citizens' Coalition Inc. - Coalition Nationale Des Citoyens Inc. et al. v. Attorney General of Canada, [1984] 5 W.W.R. 436; 11 D.L.R. (4th) 481; 32 Alta. L.R.(2d) 249, refd to. [para. 126].

R. v. Doug Rankine Co. Ltd. and Act III Video Productions Ltd. (1983), 9 C.C.C.(3d) 53; 36 C.R.(3d) 154 (Ont. Co. Ct.), refd to. [para. 134].

R. v. Red Hot Video Ltd. (1983), 6 C.C.C.(3d) 331; 6 C.R.R. 169 (B.C. Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 134].

Luscher and Deputy Minister, Revenue Canada Customs and Excise, Re (1983), 149 D.L.R.(3d) 243 (B.C. Co. Ct.), refd to. [para. 134].

Ontario Film & Video Appreciation Society and Ontario Board of Censors, Re (1983), 147 D.L.R.(3d) 58; 41 O.R.(2d) 583; 34 C.R.(3d) 73 (Ont. H.C.J.), refd to. [para. 134].

Red Hot Video and City of Vancouver, Re (1983), 5 D.L.R.(4th) 61; 48 B.C.L.R. 381; 24 M.P.L.R. 60 (B.C. S.C.), refd to. [para. 134].

Chaplinsky v. State of New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568, refd to. [para. 139].

Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476; 1 L. Ed 2d 1498, refd to. [para. 140].

Jacobellis v. Ohio, 378 U.S. 184; 12 L. Ed 2d 793, refd to. [para. 141].

Miller v. State of California, 413 U.S. 15, refd to. [para. 142].

Beauharnais v. Illinois, 343 U.S. 250, refd to. [para. 143].

Schenck v. U.S., 249 U.S. 247, refd to. [para. 147].

R. v. Big M Drug Mart Ltd. (1983), 49 A.R. 194; 9 C.C.C.(3d) 310; 5 D.L.R.(4th) 121; 28 Alta. L.R.(2d) 289 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 172].

Southam Inc. and The Queen (No. 1), Re (1983), 3 C.C.C.(3d) 515; 146 D.L.R. (3d) 408; 41 O.R.(2d) 113 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 175].

Federal Republic of Germany and Rauca, Re (1983), 70 C.C.C.(2d) 416; 141 D.L.R.(3d) 412; 38 O.R.(2d) 705, refd to. [para. 176].

Quebec Association of Protestant School Boards et al. v. Attorney General of Quebec et al. (No. 2) (1982), 140 D.L.R.(3d) 33; 3 C.R.R. 114 (Que. C.A.), refd to. [paras. 177, 193].

Reich v. College of Physicians and Surgeons of Alberta et al. (No. 2) (1984), 8 D.L.R.(4th) 696; 53 A.R. 325; 31 Alta. L.R.(2d) 205, refd to. [para. 178].

R. v. Young (1984), 3 O.A.C. 254; 13 C.C.C.(3d) 1; 46 O.R.(2d) 520; 40 C.R.(3d) 289 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 211].

Statutes Noticed:

Canadian Bill of Rights, R.S.C. 1970, App. III, preamble [para. 151]; sect. 1 [para. 154].

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982, sect. 1 [para. 171]; sect. 2(b) [para. 30]; sect. 11(b) [para. 205]; sect. 11(d) [para. 13]; sect. 15(1) [para. 163]; sect. 27 [para. 166].

Constitution Act, 1982, sect. 52 [para. 99].

Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1970, c. C-34, sect. 281.(4) [para. 220]; sect. 281.2(2), sect. 281.2(3), sect. 281.2(6), sect. 281.2(7) [para. 2]; sect. 467 [para. 239]; sect. 510 [para. 216].

European Convention on Human Rights (1950), 213 U.N.T.S. 222, art. 17 [para. 28].

International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (1963), art. 4(a) [para. 56].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Arthurs, Hate Propaganda - An Argument Against Attempts to Stop it by Legislation (1970), 18 Chitty's L.J. 1, p. 4 [para. 72].

Barrett, Is God a Racist?, The Right Wing in Canada (1987), pp. 30-40 [para. 52].

Bollinger, L.C., The Tolerant Society (1986) [para. 67].

Bork, Neutral Principles and Some First Amendment Problems (1971), 47 Ind. L.J. 1, p. 31 [para. 28].

Canada, Law Reform Commission, Evidence: Burdens of Proof and Presumptions, p. 62 [para. 25].

Canada, Law Reform Commission Working Paper, Hate Propaganda (1984) [para. 88].

Canada, Report of the Special Committee on Participation of Visible Minorities in Canadian Society, Equality Now (1984) [para. 88].

Canadian Bar Association, Hatred and the Law, Report of the Special Committee on Racial and Religious Hatred (1984) [para. 88].

Cohen, Maxwell, The Hate Propaganda Amendments: Reflections on a Controversy (1970), 9 Alta. Law Rev. 103, generally [para. 45]; p. 109 [para. 133].

Cohen Report - see Report of the Special Committee on Hate Propaganda in Canada. Cohen, Stephen, Hate Propaganda - The Amendments to the Criminal Code, 17 McGill L.J. 740 [para. 61].

Cromwell, T.A., and MacKay, A.W., Oakes in the Supreme Court: A Cautious Initiative Unimpeded by Old Ghosts (1986), 50 C.R.(3d) 34 [para. 26].

Ewaschuk, E.G., The Charter: An Overview and Remedies, 26 C.R.(3d) 54, pp. 90-91 [para. 149].

Finley, D., The Presumption of Innocence and Guilt: Why Carrol Should Prevail Over Oakes (1984), 39 C.R. (3d) 115 [para. 26].

Glanville-Williams, Criminal Law: The General Part (2nd Ed.), p. 89 [para. 18].

Group Libel Laws: Abortive Efforts to Combat Hate Propoganda (1952), 61 Yale L.J. 252, p. 258 [para. 49].

Hughes, G., Prohibiting Incitement to Racial Discrimination (1966), U.T. Law J. 364 [para. 190].

Levy, J.C., Reverse Onus Clauses in Canadian Criminal Law - An Overview (1970), 35 Sask. L. Rev. 40 [para. 26].

MacGuigan, Mark, Hate Control and Freedom of Assembly, 31 Sask. Bar Rev. 232, pp. 246-247 [para. 131].

MacGuigan, Mark, Proposed Anti-hate Legislation: Bill S-5 and the Cohen Report (1967), 15 Chitty's L.J. 302, generally [para. 45]; p. 306 [para. 132].

MacKay, A.W., and Cromwell, T.A., Oakes: A Bold Initiative Impeded by Old Ghosts (1983), 32 C.R.(3d) 221 [para. 26].

Mahoney, The Presumption of Innocence: A New Era (1988), 67 Can. Bar Rev. 1 [para. 16].

Marcus, E.T., Group Defamation and Individual Actions: A New Look at an Old Rule (1983), 71 Cal. L.R. 1532 [para. 61].

Martin's Criminal Code of Canada (1955), p. 305 [para. 84].

Mills, John Stuart, On Liberty (1956), p. 65 [para. 39].

Neier, Aryeh, Defending My Enemy: American Nazis, the Skokie case and the Risks of Freedom (1979) [para. 78].

Report of the Committee on the Law of Defamation (1948) [para. 40].

Report of the Special Committee on Hate Propaganda in Canada (1965), pp. 1 [para. 45]; 6 [para. 130]; 24 [para. 185]; 27-28 [para. 51].

Richards, D.A., Toleration and the Constitution (1986), p. 197 [para. 65].

Shakespeare, Merchant of Venice, Act 3, Scene 1 [para. 62].

Counsel:

Bruce R. Fraser, Q.C., and L.K. Phillippe, for the Crown;

D.H. Christie and Duncan L. McKillop, for James Keegstra.

This appeal was heard before Kerans, Stevenson and Irving, JJ.A., of the Alberta Court of Appeal.

On June 6, 1988, Kerans, J.A., delivered the following judgment for the Court of Appeal.