Courts have endorsed use of the Canadian Code of Advertising Standards

Justice Gill held that the City’s objective of providing a safe and welcoming transit system far outweighed the negative effects of its refusal to run offensive or discriminatory ads on its buses.9 Justice Gill ultimately concluded that the infringement upon AFDI’s freedom of expression was justified under section 1 of the Charter o The court discussed the reach and authority of the Code in Paras. [...] 1 analysis … In my view, the Court may take judicial notice of the Code in order to better understand the context of this case.” (para 69) - “…it appears that the City in this case exercised its discretion to prohibit advertising which it found to be of an immoral or irreputable character, offensive to the moral standards of the community, or which it believed negatively reflected on the character. [...] City of Hamilton (2018 ONSC 3690)15 o Summary: The City of Hamilton had removed a transphobic ad by the Christian Heritage Party, but the court ruled against the city, finding that “The City failed to demonstrate that the process undertaken in making the decision was reasonable.” o The court noted various deficiencies of the City’s decision-making process, and gave credence to the Advertising Code. [...] Further, the judge found no evidence that the city had conducted a Charter analysis in order to minimize infringement of the advertiser’s freedom of expression.17 o This case emphasizes the critical importance for cities to balance use of the Code with other considerations, including the advertiser’s freedom of expression and the city’s 15 . [...] However, for the reasons outlined above, I find that the City placed undue reliance on the Code provisions and, indeed, reached conclusions that were contrary to the opinion provided by ACS relative to at least some of the proposed advertisements.” (para 215) o Justice Gates did suggest that the city’s and even the Code’s interpretation of accuracy “may well have to yield to the Applicant’s right.