Scholarship by Professor Richard Moon was cited in two separate Supreme Court of Canada decisions delivered in October:
In the Toronto (City) v. Ontario (Attorney General) decision, the court reviewed the province enacting legislation redrawing the municipality’s electoral ward boundaries and reducing the number of wards during an election campaign. Whether legislation limits electoral participants’ right to freedom of expression and, if so, whether limitation justified.
In its decision, the court cited Professor Moon's book The Constitutional Protection of Freedom of Expression. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2000.
"Freedom of expression does not simply protect the right to speak; it also protects the right to communicate with one another," (R. Moon, The Constitutional Protection of Freedom of Expression (2000), at pp. 3-4).
In the Ward v. Quebec (Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse) decision, the court reviewed a discrimination claim brought on behalf of public figure with a disability against a professional comedian who mocked some of his physical characteristics.
In its decision, the court cited Professor Moon's article “What happens when the assumptions underlying our commitment to free speech no longer hold?” (2019), 28:1 Const. Forum 1.
"Freedom to express harmless opinions that reflect a consensus is not freedom," (R. Moon, “What happens when the assumptions underlying our commitment to free speech no longer hold?” (2019), 28:1 Const. Forum 1, at p. 4).
"Limits on freedom of expression are justified where, in a given context, there are serious reasons to fear harm that is sufficiently specific and cannot be prevented by the discernment and critical judgment of the audience," (Whatcott, at paras. 129‑35; Moon, at pp. 1‑2 and 4).