|
Safety - Safe Access to Abortion Services Act, 2017. 40 Days for Life v. Dietrich
In 40 Days for Life v. Dietrich (Ont CA, 2024) the Ontario Court of Appeal comments on the purpose behind the 'Safe Access to Abortion Services Act, 2017':[76] In addition, while broader context is undoubtedly important for understanding the meaning of an expression, whatever good one ultimately hopes to achieve cannot be used to justify expression that the motion judge found could support a finding of malice. The argument that the broader purpose was to convey a lack of support is similarly unavailing. Most expression that passes the merits hurdle will also communicate a lack of support, contempt for, or disagreement with the target of the communications. This fact alone does not elevate the value of the expression.
[77] Another finding, which this court is not in a position to overturn, is the motion judge’s determination that Ms. Dietrich’s allegation that 40 Days’ volunteers engaged in harassment and intimidation during their vigils is not supported by the record. The motion judge specifically refused to find that the Safe Access to Abortion Services Act, 2017, S.O. 2017, c. 19, Sched. 1, was enacted as a response to 40 Days’ prayer vigils, or that 40 Days was otherwise engaged in the sorts of harassing behaviours documented against other protestors at other times and in other places. This finding is again entitled to deference.
|
