One of the ads that was taken down by the City of Lethbridge in 2018. (Supplied by Lethbridge and District Pro-Life Association)

By David Opinko

Pro-Life group wins advertising court case against City of Lethbridge

Oct 30, 2020 | 1:43 PM

LETHBRIDGE, AB – A Court of Queen’s Bench judge has sided with the Lethbridge & District Pro-Life Association (LPL) after several of their ads were taken down by the City of Lethbridge.

Back in April 2018, the city removed a series of five bus and bench ads paid for by LPL that contain messages such as

• “Unborn babies feel pain”
• “Preborn Babies Feel Pain, say NO to Abortion”
• “Life Should be the Most Fundamental Human Right”
• “Equality Should Begin in the Womb”

At the time, a statement from the city read, “We acknowledge that advertising on public spaces must meet community norms, and that sometimes there can be a range of values and views. The best interests of our community are always paramount, and we will continue to exert discretion in the use of all public advertising spaces.”

According to a statement from LPL, Justice David Gates said in his ruling that the city’s decision to ban the ads was unreasonable, “because while the City said it conducted LPL’s Charter rights in making its decision, its reasons did not show that.”

What's Happening in Lethbridge this week: December 16-22, 2024

Dec 17, 2024

What's Happening in Lethbridge this week: December 9-15, 2024

Dec 10, 2024

What's Happening in Lethbridge this week: December 2-8, 2024

Dec 02, 2024

“The Court also ruled that it was unreasonable to ban the ads on the basis of the LPL’s website and that rejecting the ads on the basis of inaccuracy does not accord with the right to freedom of expression because, ‘the fight to freedom of expression does not support the contention that the expression must be widely accepted, accurate or scientifically verifiable.’“

It was highlighted by the judge that LPL has the right to share messages that some may deem to be unpopular.

The statement from LPL continues that “public upset and alarm are not sufficient to tip the balance away from the protection of freedom of expression,” and that, “a strong and healthy democracy requires a willingness on the part of the public to accept that the expression of opinions and ideas may, at time, shock, offend and even disturb them.”

“This decision is a win for every Canadian who prizes the right to share an opinion free of government taking a biased position on one side while neglecting the duty to protect freedom of expression for all” says Carol Crosson, the constitutional lawyer representing LPL. “The City should have considered our right to freedom of expression, and while the City contended that it did so, the Court found the opposite.”

In Gates’ decision, he writes that “The Applicant is entitled to the costs of this application. If the parties are unable to agree on the matter of costs, they may seek the Court’s direction within 30 days of the release of these reasons.”

Mayor Chris Spearman issued a brief statement Friday on the decision.

“It is a very complex and divisive issue in our community. The City is called to balance all sides and, sometimes, it can be very difficult to get that balance right.”

“We are now reviewing the decision and determining what the next steps may be.”

LNN is working to learn more about the court decision.