The Emo v. Pride judicial review is one month away. What’s at stake?
Answers to Frequently Asked Questions
On November 30, 2026, Ontario’s Divisional Court will hear an application for judicial review commenced by the Township of Emo and Mayor Harold McQuaker.
The Township and Mayor McQuaker are seeking to overturn the November 2024 decision of the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario which found that they had discriminated against Borderland Pride – a local 2SLBTQIA+ Pride organization – in the provision of a service, contrary to the Human Rights Code.
In the lead-up to the November 30 hearing, here are some answers to questions frequently raised by members of the community and the press.
What does Ontario’s Human Rights Code do?
The Human Rights Code is provincial legislation. In general, it prohibits discrimination in certain social areas (one of which is the provision of goods or services) on the basis of various protected grounds (which include sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, and gender expression).
Notably, the Code contains a section which states that it has primacy over other provincial statutes and regulations unless the other legislation or regulation specifically provides that it operates despite the Code.
What this means is that municipalities – which are corporations created under the Municipal Act, 2001, another provincial statute – are required to comply with the Code just like any other service provider. The Municipal Act, 2001, contains no carve-out exempting municipalities or municipal officials from the Code.
What is the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario?
The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario is like a specialized court. It has jurisdiction to hear and resolve legal proceedings that allege discrimination and harassment, contrary to the Human Rights Code.
Ontario's Court of Appeal has stated that to successfully establish discrimination contrary to the Code, an applicant to the Tribunal (the complainant or rights claimant) must prove on a balance of probabilities that their protected characteristic was a factor in the respondent’s actions. This means that the Tribunal must determine whether it is more likely than not that the violations of the Code alleged by the applicant occurred.
The Tribunal can grant remedies when it finds that discrimination has occurred, including orders for monetary compensation.
What did the Tribunal decide in this case?
In 2020, the elected council of the Township of Emo refused to provide Borderland Pride with the service of issuing a municipal proclamation recognizing Pride Month.
The issuance of proclamations (or resolutions recognizing community events) was a service that had previously been provided by council to both Borderland Pride and other organizations in the community. Cases in Ontario dating back to 1995 and 1997 have established that the refusal to provide this type of service to a Pride organization can constitute discrimination, contrary to the Code. Similar cases have been decided in the same manner in other provinces.
After Emo's council refused to issue a proclamation, even after the established case law was brought to their attention, Borderland Pride filed an application with the Tribunal. That legal proceeding went to a hearing in June 2024. The Tribunal released its decision in November of that year, in which it found that the municipality and Mayor McQuaker had discriminated against Borderland Pride.
In the Tribunal’s decision, $15,000 in compensation was ordered payable to Borderland Pride, $10,000 by the Township and $5,000 by Mayor McQuaker. The mayor and chief administrative officer of the municipality were also ordered to complete the Ontario Human Rights Commission’s “Human Rights 101” training module, which is a free, 30-minute online course.
What specific findings did the Tribunal make about Mayor McQuaker?
The Tribunal's reasons included specific findings of bad faith on the part of Mayor McQuaker. The Vice-Chair who presided at the hearing wrote:
Mayor McQuaker’s remark during the May 12 council meeting that there was no flag for the “other side of the coin … for straight people” was on its face dismissive of Borderland Pride’s flag request and demonstrated a lack of understanding of the importance to Borderland Pride and other members of the LGBTQ2 community of the Pride flag. I find this remark was demeaning and disparaging of the LGBTQ2 community of which Borderland Pride is a member and therefore constituted discrimination under the Code.
Further, the Vice-Chair found that Mayor McQuaker was not entitled to the statutory immunity for members of council under the Municipal Act, 2001, because he had acted in bad faith. She stated:
In the circumstances of this case, given the actions of this particular individual respondent, I find he did not act in good faith in voting against Borderland Pride’s requested proclamation. I therefore find that Mayor McQuaker’s actions constituted bad faith and that they are accordingly not entitled to the protection of section 448(1) of the Municipal Act, 2001.
What is a judicial review?
The decisions of most tribunals are reviewable by the judiciary by making an application for judicial review to the court. A judicial review focuses on determining whether a decision or action of an administrative body, government official, or tribunal is fair, reasonable, and lawful. It is similar to an appeal, in some respects.
In Ontario, applications for judicial review are brought to the Divisional Court, which typically hears matters in panels of three judges.
The Supreme Court of Canada has established that courts must generally apply a deferential standard of review to decisions of administrative tribunals, including the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario. This means that the reviewing court is not to substitute its own view of the case or re-weigh the evidence. They are only to intervene if the decision is unreasonable in its internal logic or justification. Less deference is afforded on questions of procedural fairness and other limited circumstances.
What is at stake in this judicial review?
If the Township of Emo succeeds on its central arguments in this judicial review, the resulting decision could significantly weaken anti-discrimination protections for Ontarians seeking services from their municipal governments.
In effect, a municipal council could be empowered to refuse services to members of the community based not only on their sexual orientation or gender identity, but also on any other protected ground – including their creed, family status, ethnicity, colour, or ability – if they can justify it based on personal belief or political will.
The municipality and the mayor’s position in this litigation is very plainly that elected officials ought to be able to withhold services from persons or groups that do not accord with their (or their constituents’ supposed) religious views or personal beliefs. Obviously, that position is particularly dangerous for vulnerable groups, such as the 2SLGBTQIA+ community.
In fact, Mayor McQuaker, Councillor Boven, and Councillor Toles filed virtually identical evidence at the Tribunal, in which they stated that their decision not to grant the requested proclamation to Borderland Pride was based on a number of patently hateful, homophobic, and transphobic comments made by members of the community, including the mayor’s family members.
There are also several consequential legal issues that could have significant implications for minority groups in Ontario and municipal government more broadly. For instance:
The Township and the mayor are arguing that Borderland Pride did not have standing to bring a claim to the Tribunal. Their argument is that corporations are not entitled to advance claims of discrimination under the Human Rights Code. If accepted, this argument would disadvantage groups of equity-deserving people from organizing in corporate structures to meaningfully advance their interests in reliance on the Code. That said, the Code’s definition of “person” appears to include corporations, and the Tribunal itself has repeatedly concluded that corporations can advance claims under the Code.
The Township and the mayor are also arguing that the immunity provisions of the Municipal Act, 2001, prohibit the Tribunal from awarding compensation payable by Mayor McQuaker. This section of the Act generally prohibits proceedings from being commenced against members of council or municipal staff for acts performed in the course of duties that are done in good faith. This argument turns, in part, on whether the mayor can be found to have acted in good faith or not. This is a factual issue on which the Tribunal is generally afforded deference, but it stands to be determined when discriminatory treatment can be said to rise to the level of bad faith.
Mayor McQuaker will argue that he was not the service provider – and that the municipal corporation, acting based on the will of council, was. Here, the court has to reconcile whether the statutory role of the mayor to chair meetings of council to ensure that the business before it is properly considered constitutes a service. It will also have to consider whether the language of the Code itself, which prohibits discrimination “with respect to services” is sufficiently broad to permit the Tribunal to make orders against the mayor, even if he is not directly the service provider. This issue may be factually distinguishable for municipalities where council has delegated the issuance of proclamations to the mayor’s office or the municipal clerk.
The court will also be called on to determine whether the constitutional right to freedom of expression, under section 2(b) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, was properly considered by the Tribunal, and whether it gives license to members of council to cast votes which result in outcomes that are at odds with the Human Rights Code. However, these Charter arguments were not raised at the Tribunal, as is typically required for them to be reviewed at the Divisional Court.
Who are the participants in the judicial review hearing?
The main parties in this judicial review are (i) the applicants (the parties initiating the litigation), being the Township of Emo and Mayor McQuaker, and (ii) the primary respondents, Borderland Pride and the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario itself.
The other parties in the Tribunal proceeding are also named as respondents. They are Douglas Judson, Katelyn Shoemaker, the Northern Ontario Pride Network (NOPN), Councillor Harrold Boven, and Councillor Warren Toles.
A number of intervenors were also given permission to provide argument to the court on limited issues. An intervenor is a third party permitted to participate in a proceeding because of its interest in the issues or its ability to offer a perspective that may assist the court in reaching a just outcome. Intervenors have to bring a motion to the court to request to be granted permission (called “leave”) to participate.
In this case, that motion was decided in July 2025. As a result, there are three intervenors:
Justice for Children and Youth, a specialty legal clinic dedicated to protecting the human rights of children, which seeks to provide the court with a perspective on the importance of centering children in its analysis, and why the municipality’s position is harmful to children and young people;
Fierté Canada Pride, Canada’s national Pride association, which seeks to assist the court in better understanding the unique impacts of this case on marginalized 2SLGBTQIA+ people, and particularly those living in remote and rural communities; and
The Canadian Constitution Foundation, which is concerned with the council members’ right to freedom of expression, as guaranteed under section 2(b) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Where can I see what the parties and intervenors are arguing?
A number of the parties and intervenors have filed facta (or factums) with the Divisional Court. These are written briefs of their argument. Copies of these documents can be accessed at the following links:
Applicants
Township of Emo (represented by McKitrick’s Law Office)
Mayor Harold McQuaker (represented by Wishart Law Firm LLP)
Respondents
Borderland Pride (represented by Goldblatt Partners LLP)
Douglas Judson (represented by Cambridge LLP)
Intervenors
Fierté Canada Pride (represented by Kastner Ko LLP)
Ontario’s courts are open to the public. Members of the public and media are welcome to request from the court a copy of the videoconference link to observe this hearing and hear the oral arguments made by counsel.
What procedural steps have happened in the judicial review so far?
Since the municipality commenced its judicial review, there has been a motion by proposed intervenors (discussed above), as well as a motion by the Township of Emo and Mayor McQuaker to introduce “fresh evidence” for the judicial review.
The motion for fresh evidence was soundly dismissed by the court in January 2026, on the basis that the proposed new evidence was inadmissible and irrelevant to the issues in the proceeding.
The main application hearing for judicial review was scheduled to proceed in June 2026; however, at the hearing, the panel of judges indicated that the Township and Mayor McQuaker had made a procedural error by failing to exhaust the procedures of the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario first – meaning that their proceeding was premature.
The Tribunal permits parties to request reconsideration of its decisions, generally within 30 days. The court dismissed the application for judicial review until the applicants had done so. Its reasons on this prematurity issue were released in June 2026.
The Township and Mayor McQuaker requested reconsideration by the Tribunal over the summer. On August 14, 2026, the Tribunal released its decision, dismissing the request for reconsideration. It refused to reconsider the decision on the basis that the request was filed 597 days late, that the Township and the mayor had provided “no meaningful justification for their delay”, and that they had failed to establish any basis for reconsideration of the original decision.
Notably, the Canadian Constitution Foundation – which was granted leave to intervene at the Divisional Court in support of the municipality – sought permission from the Tribunal to intervene on the reconsideration request. Its request was denied on the basis that an organization’s interest in shaping the law is not enough to establish a substantial interest in the subject matter of the proceeding (citing one of our client's legal victories for this premise).
To date, the Township of Emo and Mayor McQuaker have been unsuccessful at every stage of the proceedings before both the Tribunal and the Divisional Court. They continue to refuse to publicly disclose the extent of their spending on this litigation, contrary to previous decisions of the Information and Privacy Commissioner on the public nature of that information.
What other legal proceedings are still unfolding relating to these issues?
The actions of the Township of Emo and the discriminatory misconduct of Mayor McQuaker have spawned further proceedings and legal consequences, which continue to unfold. They are as follows:
Reprisal Claims
The Human Rights Code prohibits reprisal or threats of reprisal targeting persons who have asserted their rights under the Code or participated in proceedings before the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario. There are 3 reprisal claims presently before the Tribunal:
In February 2025, Borderland Pride and Mr. Judson commenced a proceeding at the Tribunal against the Township of Emo seeking $30,000 in compensation. Their claim alleges that the Township reprised against them by refusing to fulfill two routine freedom of information requests which sought information about the municipality’s spending of taxpayer money in relation to the discrimination claims in 2020. The Township refused the access request on the specific basis that Borderland Pride and Mr. Judson were parties to that proceeding who had advanced discrimination claims under the Code. This form of retaliatory conduct is expressly prohibited by the Code. The Tribunal file number is 2025-60390-I.
In October 2025, Mr. Judson commenced a proceeding at the Tribunal against Mayor McQuaker and Michael Keller, an individual who engaged in online crowdfunding on GiveSendGo for the stated support of the Township's response to the 2024 Tribunal decision. The claim seeks total compensation of $100,000. The application states that Mayor McQuaker and Mr. Keller reprised against Mr. Judson, and specifically that Mr. Keller engaged in a vicious online campaign to attack his professional license because he advanced a human rights claim. It also alleges reprisal arising from media comments made by the Mayor suggesting that the Tribunal claim against him was extortive or criminal, and for his encouragement of Mr. Keller to retaliate against him. The Tribunal’s file number is 2025-63879-I.
In November 2025, Borderland Pride and Mr. Judson commenced a proceeding at the Tribunal against 9 unrelated individuals across Canada. These persons were located and identified using third-party records produced from internet providers and email and social media companies in response to Norwich orders made by the Ontario Superior Court of Justice earlier that year. The respondents to this claim are alleged to have made various online threats (including threats of death or violence) against Borderland Pride and Mr. Judson in the aftermath of media reporting of the November 2024 Tribunal decision finding that the Township and Mayor McQuaker had discriminated against Borderland Pride. The claim seeks total compensation of $450,000 ($50,000 per respondent). The application is premised on the basis that the Code provides every person with a right to enforce their rights under the Code without reprisal or threat of reprisal. It further provides that no person shall infringe a right under the Code, which would include the right not to be subject to reprisal. Claims of reprisal are not expressly limited in the Code to the prescribed social areas or to persons having a service relationship with the complainant. The Tribunal’s file numbers are 2025-64387-I and 2025-64388-I. This proceeding is currently expected to proceed to a summary hearing on the initial question of jurisdiction.
Access to Information Appeals
The Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario hears appeals from access to information requests made under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. There are 3 ongoing appeals:
An appeal is currently before the Information and Privacy Commissioner concerning the Township of Emo’s refusal to disclose its total legal spending in the 2020 Tribunal proceeding concerning the Pride proclamation. This proceeding is in its final stages and a decision is pending from the adjudicator. The appeal file number is MA24-00490.
A second appeal is before the Commissioner concerning the Township of Emo’s refusal to disclose its total legal spending in relation to a Municipal Conflict of Interest Act proceeding brought against Councillor Boven in relation to his indemnification in the 2020 Tribunal proceeding. This proceeding is in its final stages and a decision is pending from the adjudicator. The appeal file number is MA24-00526.
A third appeal concerns the Township's refusal to disclose its total legal spending in responding to the two appeals described above. This appeal is in its early stages and no file number has been assigned yet.
Unlawful and Missing Donations to the Township
Municipal integrity commissioners hear complaints under a municipality's code of conduct. In August 2026, the Township of Emo's integrity commissioner released a report confirming that Mayor McQuaker had unlawfully accepted over $5,000 in online crowdfunding donations that were raised for the municipality. Mayor McQuaker had failed to make the required declaration of gift, contrary to the municipal code of conduct. His council ultimately suspended the Mayor's pay and reprimanded him. Despite the nearly two-year process of the complaint, the Mayor did not repay the funds to the municipality until after the findings became public.
The Ontario Provincial Police has confirmed, in response to media inquiries, that it is investigating various crowdfunding campaigns that were launched online by private citizens to raise money from the public to support the Township of Emo to respond to the 2024 Tribunal decision. The municipality’s own disclosures in response to access to information requests indicate that, apart from the funds subsequently recovered from the mayor, it has received none of the money raised through the online GiveSendGo or GoFundMe campaigns launched in late 2024. Text messages from Mr. Keller indicate that he kept funds he had told donors were being raised to support the municipality.
Further questions?
We remain available to provide further information or comment to members of the legal community or media covering these proceedings. Please contact:
Douglas W. Judson (he/him)
Judson Howie LLP
Email: doug@judsonhowie.ca
This post is provided as legal information only. Nothing stated above is legal advice or is intended to be or should be considered as legal advice, nor does reviewing this post or relying on its contents form a lawyer-client relationship with our office.
Comments