Article content continued

There is speculation that, as chief justice, she now has an opportunity to bring a majority over to her side, despite almost certain dissent by more liberal judges such as Rosalie Abella.

Bruce Ryder, a constitutional law expert at Osgoode Hall law school, said the court will “almost certainly find that the language of the Saskatchewan provision is too broad and imprecise.” It currently prohibits not only hate, but ridicule, belittlement and affront to dignity.

“It will be interesting to see whether a majority of the Court is content to remove or restrict these words so that the provision only prohibits speech that is hateful, narrowly construed, or whether a majority of the Court believes that the provision is so flawed that it has to be declared unconstitutional in its entirety,” Prof. Ryder said.

Richard Moon, a constitutional legal scholar at the University of Windsor and an expert in hate speech, said it would be “an exceptional and extraordinary thing” for the Supreme Court to overturn its own previous decision, though not impossible. If they do, the effects will be wide-ranging.

Narrowly, Wednesday’s ruling is likely to concern only Saskatchewan’s law, he said. “But given the similarity between that and the [human rights hate speech] provisions in Alberta, BC and the Northwest Territories, you would think they would all be… open to serious question,” he said.

Those jurisdictions all have human rights laws against hate in the written word. Other provinces, such as Ontario, have bans on discriminatory signage, but specifically do not deal with printed material.