Listen to this article
Estimated 4 minutes
The audio version of this article is generated by AI-based technology. Mispronunciations can occur. We are working with our partners to continually review and improve the results.
A Court of King’s Bench judge has ruled the University of Lethbridge’s decision to cancel a lecture by controversial academic Frances Widdowson was “fundamentally and fatally flawed” because it didn’t consider a Charter-protected right.
In 2023, Mount Royal University professor Frances Widdowson had been set to deliver a talk called “How ‘Woke-ism’ Threatens Academic Freedom” after being invited by a U of L faculty member, but the university decided against allowing the lecture on the campus.
Justice Chris Simard has now decided the university’s decision was “fundamentally and fatally flawed.”
“The University erred in law by not expressly considering and mentioning the Charter in making the decision,” the judge wrote in a ruling released Thursday after hearing arguments in April on a judicial review of the university’s decision to cancel the talk.
Widdowson and Jonah Pickle, a student who planned to attend the Feb. 1, 2023, lecture, had argued the U of L’s decision breached their freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression under section 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, as well as their freedom of peaceful assembly under section 2(c) of the Charter.
Simard concluded the university “failed to appreciate and expressly consider Mr. Pickle’s and Dr. Widdowson’s rights under section 2(b)”, resulting in a “fundamentally flawed” decision.
Simard did not decide whether the applicants’ rights to free assembly were breached, writing that lawyers on both sides did not make any “substantial argument” on that issue.
Widdowson still wants to give lecture
Widdowson told CBC News on Friday that she’s “incredibly pleased” with the ruling.
“I’m looking forward to having a lecture at the University of Lethbridge on the subject of how wokism threatens academic freedom, because we have seen over the last probably going on 10 years how terrible wokism has been for academic freedom and Canadian universities,” said Widdowson.
She added she’s ready to deliver the lecture “tomorrow.”
But she said the university would have to deal with the “derangement” enabled there of “orange shirt activism.”
Widdowson is known for her controversial views on Canada’s residential school system.
“All they have to do is give the right messaging to the students and faculty that it’s important to discuss all ideas. If you don’t like someone’s ideas, you should provide better arguments,” said Widdowson.
Widdowson, a former tenured Mount Royal University professor who’s currently fighting her 2021 firing, said she’s “completely prepared” for any backlash surrounding her lecture at the U of L.
University argued Charter didn’t apply
Matthew Woodley, lawyer for the University of Lethbridge and its governors, had argued the Charter did not apply in the case since the university is an autonomous body and not “government.”
But Simard found he didn’t need to decide whether the university is government “by nature.”
“This is because I have concluded that, in making the decision, the university was acting to regulate freedom of expression by students on campus,” wrote Simard. “That act was ‘governmental’ in nature, so the university’s act in making the decision was subject to the Charter.”
In a Friday statement, the University of Lethbridge acknowledged receiving the court’s ruling and said it’s in the process of reviewing and analyzing it.
“We will have a further statement once that has been completed,” said the U of L.
University faced pressure to cancel Widdowson talk
Before Widdowson’s scheduled 2023 lecture, the university was under pressure to drop it. Two petitions, which received more than 4,000 signatures, called Widdowson a “residential school denialist.”
At first, the University of Lethbridge said it would allow Widdowson to give the talk, citing its free expression policy, but also noted her views conflicted with the university’s.
The university later decided against allowing public space for the lecture.
Three and a half years after the talk was scheduled, it’s now practically “impossible” for the event to go ahead, wrote Simard, who did not force the university to allow the event to proceed or require the university to reconsider whether to let it be held.