In Ottawa, the answer came with a court ruling, $2,500 in damages, and a clear message: you can't silence criticism by hiding behind your own procedural rules.

The Ottawa Small Claims Court just ruled that the Ottawa Police Service Board (OPSB) violated the Charter of Rights and Freedoms by selectively enforcing its meeting procedures to keep critical voices, specifically Black community advocates, out of the room.

Who Got Shut Out and Why It Matters

The plaintiffs included 613-819 Black Hub, a Black-led community organization, along with Robin Browne and Jeffrey Bradley—people who had spent years showing up to OPSB meetings to talk about systemic anti-Black racism in policing.

They weren't newcomers. They'd been making delegations for years, consistently raising uncomfortable truths about how policing affects Black communities in Ottawa.

Then the rules started changing.

New deadlines appeared. Written submissions were suddenly required in advance. And when these delegates missed a deadline by minutes or asked to send a substitute speaker because they couldn't attend, they were denied.

Meanwhile, other delegates - the ones who generally supported the board and policing - weren't held to the same standard. They got flexibility. They got second chances. They got heard.

The Double Standard the Court Couldn't Ignore

Here's what made this case significant: the court didn't throw out the OPSB's procedural rules. The judge acknowledged the board had every legal right to set procedures and manage its meetings.

The problem wasn't the rules themselves. It was how they were being used.

The court examined specific incidents where delegation requests were denied and compared them to situations where the board bent over backward to accommodate other speakers. The pattern was undeniable: if you criticized policing, you faced rigid enforcement. If you supported the status quo, you got leeway.

That's not neutrality. That's gatekeeping dressed up as procedure.

What the Charter Actually Protects

Freedom of expression, your right to speak, especially to criticize government and public bodies, is protected under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It's one of the fundamental freedoms that's supposed to make democracy work.

The court ruled that the OPSB's selective treatment of delegates crossed the line into a real, significant violation of that freedom.

Sure, the government and public bodies can sometimes limit Charter rights, but only if they can justify it under what's called section 1 of the Charter. The OPSB tried. They failed.

The court wasn't buying the argument that shutting out critical voices was necessary to run orderly meetings, especially when supportive voices faced none of the same barriers.

The Damages Were Small. The Point Was Huge.

The individual plaintiffs were awarded $2,500 each. That's not life-changing money. But that wasn't the point.

The 613-819 Black Hub received a formal declaration from the court that its Charter rights had been violated. And the court made it clear: these remedies weren't just about compensation. They were about vindicating rights and sending a warning to other public bodies.

You can't use procedural rules as a weapon to silence dissent.

What This Means for Black Communities and Every Community

This decision matters because it exposes a tactic that happens all the time: using "neutral" rules to produce discriminatory outcomes.

A missed deadline becomes grounds for exclusion, but only if you're the wrong kind of speaker. A last-minute scheduling conflict becomes insurmountable, but only if your message makes people uncomfortable.

For community advocates, this case is validation. Being shut out of public forums isn't just frustrating; it can be unconstitutional. Your voice matters, and when public bodies open the door to community input, they can't slam it shut on the people saying things they don't want to hear.

For public bodies, this is a wake-up call. Transparency, consistency, and fairness aren't suggestions when fundamental freedoms are at stake. Once you invite the public to speak, you have to let them speak. Even when, and especially when they're criticizing you.

Because that's the whole point of public consultation. Not to hear applause but to hear the truth. And sometimes the truth is uncomfortable.