Ontario Court of Appeal: Anti-Antisemitism Group Allowed to Intervene in Public Incitement Hatred Acquittal

• A man was acquitted of public incitement of hatred after a trial judge determined that he made inflammatory statements in online videos, but not in a 'public place'.
• The Ontario Court of Appeal allowed an anti-antisemitism group to intervene in the Crown's appeal against this acquittal.
• The intervener will provide submissions on how online speech can be considered public incitement of hatred.

The appeal court noted that appellate courts have yet to provide guidance on the necessary elements of public incitement of hatred.

A man was acquitted of public incitement of hatred after a trial judge determined that he made inflammatory statements in online videos, but not in a 'public place' as defined by the Criminal Code. The Ontario Court of Appeal allowed an anti-antisemitism group to intervene in the Crown's appeal against this acquittal, citing the importance of clarifying the interpretation of 'public place' under s.319(1) of the Criminal Code. The intervener, Alliance of Canadians Combatting Antisemitism (ALCCA), will provide submissions on how online speech can be considered public incitement of hatred.

The case involves a man who made videos urging violence against Jews and was charged with advocating genocide, wilful promotion of hatred, and public incitement of hatred. The trial judge acquitted him on the charge of public incitement of hatred due to a lack of evidence that he communicated his statements in a 'public place'. However, the Ontario Court of Appeal has recognized the significance of this issue, particularly given the increasing shift towards online discourse. The appeal court noted that appellate courts have yet to provide guidance on the necessary elements of public incitement of hatred.

This ruling has important implications for lawyers and legal professionals who will need to consider the interpretation of 'public place' under s.319(1) of the Criminal Code in cases involving online speech and public incitement of hatred. The Ontario Court of Appeal's decision to allow the ALCCA to intervene highlights the significance of this issue and the need for clarity on how online statements can be considered public incitement of hatred.

Lawyers should watch for the implications of this ruling on the interpretation of 'public place' under s.319(1) of the Criminal Code, particularly in cases involving online speech and public incitement of hatred.

Source: Original reporting via Ont. CA lets anti-antisemitism group intervene in man’s acquittal for publicly inciting hatred