In summer 2023, Harvest Ministries International (HMI) booked a convention centre called Centre des congrès de Québec for a large religious rally. It was intended to be the “culminating event” of a series of meetings organized by HMI across Quebec.
HMI described the rally as a gathering for prayer, fellowship, and forgiveness among Canada’s founding peoples. Although pro-life issues were expected to be discussed briefly, the event was not organized as a pro-life rally.
Quebec Minister Cancels HMI’s Event
A few weeks before the event, a journalist contacted Quebec’s then-Minister of Tourism Caroline Proulx for comment, describing HMI as an evangelical, anti-abortion organization. Outraged by HMI’s pro-life views, Minister Proulx directed the convention centre to cancel its agreement with HMI, saying the organization’s views conflicted with Quebec values and undermined women’s dignity.
The convention centre complied. In correspondence with HMI, the convention centre cited two reasons for cancelling: (1) the convention centre is accountable to the Quebec government, and (2) an allegation that HMI founder Arthur Lucier assaulted one of the convention centre’s employees.
HMI Sues the Quebec Government
Because of the late termination of the contract, HMI could not find a comparable venue and cancelled the event. HMI sued the Minister of Tourism and the convention centre, seeking damages and a declaration that the cancellation violated its freedoms of religion, expression, and peaceful assembly, and its right to equality.
The judge presiding over the case, Justice Alain Trudel, ultimately sided with HMI.
The convention centre produced no evidence supporting the allegation of assault, so the court dismissed that argument.
Justice Trudel also rejected the convention centre’s attempt to evade liability by shifting blame to the Minister. According to the court, the contract contained no provision allowing the convention centre to cancel the contract based on ministerial direction. Thus, the centre remained liable for breaking its contract with HMI.
The Court found that the tourism minister had no legislative or regulatory authority to order the contract cancelled. Justice Trudel concluded that Minister Proulx acted in an “arbitrary and abusive manner,” disregarded HMI’s rights, and ignored the convention centre’s contractual obligations. As a result, he found Minister Proulx personally liable.
Importantly, Justice Trudel also held that the cancellation infringed HMI’s freedom of expression by preventing the organization from expressing its political and religious views, including its pro-life beliefs.
The Court rejected the minister’s argument that the government had a “right not to be associated with particular discourse”.
The Court also rejected the argument that the government’s “deep discomfort” with pro-life speech was sufficiently pressing to justify the Minister’s restriction of HMI’s free speech.
Because Justice Trudel concluded that HMI’s freedom of expression was violated and that HMI’s claim should therefore succeed, he did not believe it necessary to decide whether HMI’s other Charter freedoms (religion, assembly, etc.) had also been breached.
The Court awarded HMI approximately $30,600 for breach of contract and $30,000 in punitive damages against Minister Proulx personally for her abuse of power.
Déjà vu
Quebec’s recent restrictions on religious symbols and public prayer are not new in kind.
Quebec has a history of unlawfully suppressing minority religious expression. For example, in the famous 1959 Supreme Court case Roncarelli v. Duplessis, an outraged Quebec Premier revoked a restaurant owner’s liquor licence because the owner supported Jehovah’s Witnesses in distributing religious pamphlets. The Supreme Court condemned the revocation as an abuse of power and overturned it.
HMI’s case is an important reminder that Christians in Quebec must be ready to stand up for their legal rights especially under a secularist government determined to take them away. The case also serves as a stern warning that government officials cannot weaponize public facilities or public powers to suppress religious or political views they dislike. Hopefully, Quebec heeds that warning.
