Courts have endorsed use of the Canadian Code of Advertising Standards

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) o “…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, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, Divisional Court, (2018 ONSC 3690)16 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.” The court noted various deficiencies of the City’s decision-making. [...] 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.18 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 statutory objectives.19) The City of Lethbridge’s use of the Co. [...] In this regard, the court said: o “The intervenor Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada presented arguments in support of the City’s decisions, emphasizing the importance of protecting abortion rights and the deleterious effects of the applicant’s advertisements on the rights of women and people capable of pregnancy. [...] Rather, it is first for the City to weigh the issues identified by the Coalition against the applicant’s right to freedom of expression.” (para 91) The court recognized the value of the Advertising Code as follows: o “We are not faulting Ad Standards for failing to embark on this exercise [of balancing Charter rights].