April 17, 2025 – In a significant ruling for free expression in Canada, the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia has dismissed a discrimination complaint, emphasizing that being offended does not equate to experiencing discrimination.
Justice Denise Boudreau concluded that the complaint, initiated by a student referred to as “Q,” lacked sufficient grounds under the Nova Scotia Human Rights Act. The case centered on a 2019 article by Professor John MacKinnon of Saint Mary’s University, which critiqued academic standards and questioned the influence of “indigenization” on university policies. In the article, professor McKinnon asked “How many academic regulations have been relaxed or ignored, how many transcripts tampered with, how many grades inflated and pseudo-subjects concocted in deference to the imperatives of ‘indigenization’?” The student believed the article targeted her and filed a complaint against the university and the Society for Academic Freedom and Scholarship.
After an initial investigation, the Nova Scotia Human Rights Commission referred the case to a Board of Inquiry in June 2024. However, the university challenged this referral, arguing that the article addressed matters of public concern and did not constitute discrimination. Justice Boudreau agreed, stating, “Being upset or offended is not the same as discrimination,” and noted the absence of any imposed burden or disadvantage on the student compared to others.
This decision reinforces the protection of freedom of expression under Section 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, affirming that human rights laws are not designed to shield individuals from all forms of offense but to address substantive instances of discrimination.
The Justice Centre of Constitutional Freedom’s Constitutional lawyer Chris Fleury, representing the Society, welcomed the ruling as a victory for academic freedom and free speech, stating “My client and I are elated with the decision. The Court rightly agreed with our submission that freedom of expression is not to be interfered with, even in the context of a human rights complaint.”
“This is a significant victory for Canadians overall, and particularly for those who seek to express controversial opinions,” he concluded.
