Skip to main content

Comedian Mike Ward speaks to the media at the Quebec Appeal Court, in Montreal, on Jan. 16, 2019.

Ryan Remiorz/The Canadian Press

The Supreme Court of Canada has decided to hear the appeal of Quebec comedian Mike Ward in a human-rights case that touches on the limits of artistic expression and the role of the country’s human-rights tribunals.

Mr. Ward is appealing a decision by Quebec’s highest court that largely upheld a human-rights tribunal’s ruling requiring the comedian to pay damages to a singer with disabilities he mocked. As is customary, the Supreme Court gave no reasons for why it decided to hear the case.

The Quebec Court of Appeal ruled last November that Mr. Ward’s comments about Jérémy Gabriel’s disability compromised the young performer’s right to the safeguarding of his dignity and could not be justified, even in a society where freedom of expression is valued.

Story continues below advertisement

In a 2-1 decision, the court said “comedians must nevertheless realize that artistic freedom isn’t absolute and they are, like all citizens, responsible for the consequences of their actions when they exceed certain limits.”

A 2016 Quebec Human Rights Tribunal ruling had ordered Mr. Ward to pay $35,000 in moral and punitive damages to Mr. Gabriel based on comments he made during shows between 2010 and 2013.

Mr. Gabriel has Treacher Collins syndrome, a congenital disorder characterized by skull and facial deformities. He became a celebrity in Quebec after he sang with Celine Dion and for the Pope.

In his act, Mr. Ward joked he thought Mr. Gabriel’s illness was terminal and people were only nice to him because he would soon die. Mr. Ward then joked that after he realized the child was not going to die, he tried to drown him.

Julius Grey, a human-rights lawyer who represents Mr. Ward, said he and his client are relieved by the Supreme Court’s decision.

Quebec’s human-rights commission can only act, Mr. Grey said, if someone is the victim of discrimination. At issue, he explained, is whether making fun of someone’s disability is a form of discrimination. Mr. Grey said the ruling will have an impact on all of Canada’s human-rights tribunals.

The other important question the country’s highest court will have to debate, Mr. Grey said, is what effect discriminating words have on freedom of expression. “There are not many cases on artistic content and it’s extremely important for the Supreme Court, I think, to guide Canadians with respect to the limits of artistic and other expression,” he said.

Story continues below advertisement

Mr. Grey said the dissenting voice in the Appeal Court decision demonstrates his case is strong. Justice Manon Savard disagreed with her two colleagues, writing that Mr. Ward’s jokes were “shocking and degrading,” but they did not amount to discrimination.

“The appellant’s words do not convey discriminatory discourse and do not seek to arouse in his audience a belief that the dignity of the respondent, Jeremy Gabriel, because of his disability, is of less value.”

Mr. Ward has defended himself on Twitter, saying comedy is not a crime. “In a ‘free’ country, it shouldn’t be up to a judge to decide what constitutes a joke on stage,” Mr. Ward has tweeted. “The people in attendance laughing already answered that question.”

Meissoon Azzaria, spokeswoman for Quebec’s human-rights commission, said the agency “takes note” of the court’s decision. “The issues debated are important for society in order to clarify, in particular, the balance between freedom of expression and the right to equality … regarding the protection of one’s dignity, honour and reputation.”

Mr. Gabriel did not immediately respond to a request for an interview.

Mr. Grey said it will take about one year for the parties to be ready to plead before the Supreme Court.

Story continues below advertisement

Our Morning Update and Evening Update newsletters are written by Globe editors, giving you a concise summary of the day’s most important headlines. Sign up today.

Report an error
Due to technical reasons, we have temporarily removed commenting from our articles. We hope to have this fixed soon. Thank you for your patience. If you are looking to give feedback on our new site, please send it along to feedback@globeandmail.com. If you want to write a letter to the editor, please forward to letters@globeandmail.com.

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff.

We aim to create a safe and valuable space for discussion and debate. That means:

  • Treat others as you wish to be treated
  • Criticize ideas, not people
  • Stay on topic
  • Avoid the use of toxic and offensive language
  • Flag bad behaviour

Comments that violate our community guidelines will be removed.

Read our community guidelines here

Discussion loading ...

To view this site properly, enable cookies in your browser. Read our privacy policy to learn more.
How to enable cookies