On what legal basis does the University rely to justify the dismantling?
In summary, management argues that the camp, which is located on its land, does not respect its regulations. But the regulations are also subject to respect for fundamental rights, which include freedom of expression, notes law professor Louis-Philippe Lampron of Laval University. In this case, the students are not engaging in an outdoor activity: they are demonstrating. “It is a collective movement, which is protected in an important way by freedom of expression,” he emphasizes. It is possible to limit freedom of expression, but management must demonstrate “serious reasons” (threat to security, obstruction, etc.).
And does the University have serious grounds?
This is the crux of the matter. The Superior Court on Wednesday rejected a request for an injunction made by two students who accused the demonstrators of creating a “hostile” and “dangerous” environment. “The plaintiffs did not convince the judge that they were threatened by the demonstration,” summarizes Louis-Philippe Lampron. Does this mean that the dismantling of the camp invoked by management would also be unjustified? The decision at the very least casts doubt. “It is not clear whether McGill is based on sufficiently strong evidence to prove a possible attack on freedom of expression,” he believes, adding that the situation can nevertheless evolve quickly.
Could the dismantling be contested?
Yes. The demonstrators could subsequently take action against the management by claiming that it violated their freedom of expression. “The dismantling decision would be subject to the application of the Quebec Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which protects freedom of expression,” explains Mr. Lampron. Moreover, the right to demonstrate necessarily involves inconvenience, underlines the professor. In other words, the sensitivity of others is not sufficient to justify an attack on freedom of expression. “If the right to demonstrate is limited to demonstrating in places where no one is bothered, we might as well say that it does not exist,” he illustrates.