Supreme Court agrees to hear comedian Mike Ward’s appeal

Jeremy Gabriel believes there is no legal reason for the Supreme Court of Canada to consider the twice ruling against comedian Mike Ward.

Photo : The Canadian Press / Ryan Remiorz

—

Freedom of expression versus the right to equality

The Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse (CDPDJ) says it takes note of the Supreme Court’s decision.

For the CDPDJ, which will present its arguments to the Supreme Court, it is important to clarify in particular the balance between freedom of expression and the right to equality in the exercise of the right to the protection of one’s dignity, honor and reputation.

“A bygone era”

It was in 2016 that the Court of Appeal convicted comedian Mike Ward to pay $ 35,000 to Jérémy Gabriel for making fun of his disability on stage. The tribunal thus confirmed the decision made by the Human Rights Tribunal.

In the divided judgment of two judges against one, the Court of Appeal had explained that the comedian had gone too far in his jokes about the young man and that his words were indeed discriminatory.

[L’époque] where the handicap of certain people was exploited to entertain the population is over, had written the judges.

Jérémy Gabriel’s mother, who was also asking for compensation in this case, had been rejected in the second instance judgment.

An important cause

For civil litigation lawyer Marie-Hélène Beaudoin, “it is really a good thing” that the highest court in the country agrees to rule on this. cause of importance.

In an interview on Thursday on RDI, Me Beaudoin explained that we were really in a case and that this cause included very specific facts.

In its decision, the Supreme Court will provide a framework that will allow a better analysis of the rights and responsibilities of each, according to the lawyer.

Me Beaudoin affirms that in law, the standards are sometimes a little vague and this is really the case when it comes to freedom of expression, she specifies.

The challenge is to balance the rights of two people […], she argues.

–