Court hears arguments in Prince Albert flag fight
Debate around a controversial flag depicting a cartoon fetus has moved to the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal.
Court heard Wednesday from lawyers for the Prince Albert Right to Life Association (PARLA) and the City of Prince Albert.
Both parties are appealing a June decision dismissing an application for judicial review from PARLA and ordering the city to pay the group $6,000 in legal costs.
At that time, PARLA wanted a review of the city’s flag policy decision to not allow the group’s prolife flag to fly.
The flag depicted a cartoon fetus, named Umbert the Unborn, and the words “please let me live.”
In her decision, Justice Gwendolyn V. Goebel ruled that the city “did not follow its own policy or proceed in a procedurally fair manner” in regard to declining the flag.
In May 2018, the city ended its previous practice of allowing access to a courtesy flagpole. As a result, Goebel did not include the flag policy in her decision.
PARLA has since filed an appeal, looking for a declaration that the city infringed on its Charter right to freedom of expression by not allowing the flag to be flown.
The city filed its own appeal over the cost order and findings of the lower court.
Zachary Carter, a lawyer for the City of Prince Albert, said the city’s position is that it acted in good faith, especially considering controversy in the community about the flag being raised.
Not being able to fly the flag in the way they wanted did not constitute a denial of their freedom of expression, as the group was still able to host a “Pro-life Week” event, make use of the memori- al square in front of city hall and display flags and imagery in other ways, Carter said.
“They merely did not have use of the municipal flagpole. They were not banned in some wholesale rejection for expressing their cause.”
Outside court in Saskatoon on Wednesday, Marty Moore, a lawyer representing PARLA, said not being able to use the courtesy pole still constituted an infringement.
“There’s really never a justification to say that ‘we can infringe your rights here because you can exercise those rights somewhere else,’” Moore said. “What’s important is that expression and the right of citizens to express themselves be treated equally, regardless of the groups or the messages being expressed.”
Court reserved its decision.