Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Greenhall, Melissa
Mayne, Courtney
Mangat, Daisy
Mckay, Emily
Slavik, Andra
Running head: THE LAW ASSIGNMENT 2
When examining Philip Kapoor’s right to freedom of speech under section 2(b) of the
Charter of Rights and Freedoms (Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982, s. 2(b)), it is
important to consider the events that took place from the start of his teaching career to the ones
that led up to the Remembrance Day incident. A critical part of our arguments for and against
Kapoor is a dissection of section 2(b) of the Charters of Rights and Freedoms (Charter of
Rights and Freedoms, 1982, s. 2(b)) and the application of the Oakes test, that result in a better
understanding of the entirety of this case. Throughout this paper we will also consider the case
Philip Kapoor was a grade 6 teacher at Stardust Elementary in Fort McMurray. He was
described as warm, friendly and excited to shape the minds of his students. As a teacher,
Kapoor had a passion to teach his student's the influence of social, political and economic
systems and how we are able to create a collective well-being for all in our world. In his efforts
to offer his students a balanced perspective of war he offered a pacifist view where any parties
involved have some level of responsibility. Under section 2(b) of the Charter of Rights and
Freedoms ( Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982, s.(b)), Kapoor is allowed to have the
“freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other
media of communication” (Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982, s. 2(b)). This includes his
freedom to express his ideas and critique various events in history. Additionally, Kapoor did
not instruct his student's to protest the Remembrance Day Ceremony. He simply encouraged
his students to use their voices in order to incite social change however they see fit. The protest
at City Hall on Remembrance Day was the product of student activism and engagement which
was not planned by Mr. Kapoor. Under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms ( Charter of Rights
Running head: THE LAW ASSIGNMENT 3
and Freedoms, 1982, s. 2 (b)), student's in Canadian schools have the right to Freedom of
Expression, and becauses the protest was neither violent or espoused hatred the students are
protected under 2C as stated “freedom of peaceful assembly” (Charter of Right and Freedoms,
1982, s. 2(c)).
When examining the James Keegstra case, (R. v. Keegstra. EDUC 525, September 18
2018, 52- 55) he was charged under then section 319(2) under the Criminal Code ( Charter of
Rights and Freedoms, 1982, s.2(b)) of Canada for inciting hatred through teaching. In contrast
to Keegstra’s case, it can be argued that Kapoor should not be considered for this charge
because he did not incite hatred. Furthermore, referring to the defenses presented in the
Keegstra case, Kapoor’s content in his lessons and speech were relevant to the subject students
were learning about and that he found this information beneficial to his students. Kapoor also
believed these statements to be true. Taken together, these defenses suggest that Kapoor cannot
be convicted under subsection 2 of the Criminal Code (Criminal code, 1985, s. 2) and is still
maintains his Charter of Rights of section 2 (B) (Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982, s.2(b)).
Therefore, the school board does not have a right to suspend Mr. Kapoor from his teaching
EDUC 525, September 18 2018, 94-97), the court appealed in his favor in regards to his
freedom of speech under his religious rights. Morin’s Charter Rights (Charter of Rights and
Freedoms,1982, s.2(b)) were upheld because as an educator, it was reasonable to share his
religious beliefs with his students. This is similar to Kapoor who shared his belief of pacifism
with his student's which he argued was relevant to the content being taught. As Morin was
Running head: THE LAW ASSIGNMENT 4
covered under section 2(b) of the charter, the same should be applied to Kapoor as he was also
restricted by school administrators. When comparing the Kapoor case to the Keegstra and
Morin case, it can be deduced that it was within Kapoor’s rights to express his ideological
leanings within the classroom setting. Additionally, his beliefs were relevant to the course
material and did not incite hatred in any way. Therefore, the school board infringed on
Kapoor’s second amendment rights by suspending him when he refused to apologize to the
Although there is evidence supporting Kapoor, there are many aspects that support
arguments against him. In order to determine whether Mr. Kapoor’s section rights from the
Charter of Rights and Freedoms have been violated we must apply the Oakes Test. Section 1
of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms (Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982, s.2(b)) states
that while the rights and freedoms are guaranteed for people, it is subject to “reasonable limits
prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society” (Charter
of Rights and Freedoms, 1982, s. 2(b)). We can conclude that Mr. Kapoor’s rights of freedom
of speech were infringed upon, however it does not hold up to the Oakes Test. The first
question of the Oakes Test asks if the action taken by the school board was reasonable. In the
case of Mr. Kapoor the school was justified in removing him from his teaching responsibilities
because of his refusal of apologize to both students and parents. The test also poses the
question of rational connection to the objective. In other words, is the punishment connected to
proportion to Kapoor’s violation and is directly connected to his actions. This is a rational and
The Oakes Test a sks if the school was justified in limiting Mr. Kapoor’s Charter Rights,
as he is still entitled to his opinion and right to free speech. As the school gave Mr. Kapoor an
opportunity to apologize for his actions, this does not infringe upon his rights to freedom of
thought or speech as he may believe what he likes on his own time. Alternately, as Mr. Kapoor
is in a position of power as a teacher, and given the age of his student's who are
impressionable, he must uphold a standard of moral character for his student's. As a result, the
school is justified to impair the right in question in order to achieve a reasonable objective; the
objective being students’ access to accurate, unbiased information. Lastly, the Oakes Test
rights. As explained above, Mr. Kapoor’s suspension can be revoked in exchange for an
apology for his actions, not for the abandonment of his personally justified beliefs. The school
In the case of Ross vs New Brunswick School District, (Ross v. New Brunswick School
District No. 15. EDUC 525, September 18th 2018, 56-82) it was argued that public school
teachers are in a position of trust and influence, and must appear impartial and tolerant. It is
also important to highlight that the school board has the duty to maintain a positive school
environment. It may be concluded, as it was in Ross’s case, that Kapoor did not fulfill his duty
as a teacher to appear impartial and tolerant. Furthermore, the school board acted appropriately
concluded that Kapoor’s rights are subject to reasonable limits and can be infringed upon
because he did not fulfil his duties as a teacher, therefore influencing his students to take part
Running head: THE LAW ASSIGNMENT 6
in an event which infringed on the Charter rights of others who were at the Remembrance Day
ceremony.
Kapoor’s case emphasises the difficulty of navigating cases that involve the Charter of
Rights and Freedoms (Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982, s. 2(b)) due to their multifaceted
nature. It is difficult to reconcile opinions about when and how one’s rights may be infringed
upon, and to interpret the boundaries within which actions of “reasonable” people fit into. In
the previously mentioned cases, it is evident that both sides of each disagreement can make a
case by referencing the Charter as well as the rights of students, teachers, parents, and
administrators within a school setting. As teachers in the professional realm we must consider
the extent to which our opinions influence our students and must ensure that we are using our
authority responsibly. By recognising that The Charter of Rights and Freedoms ( Charter of
Rights and Freedoms, 1982, s.2 (b)) was written as a live document which allows for fluidity of
limits and interpretations, a parallel can be drawn to our teaching practice. Just as society
places trust in the arbiters of law to deliver justice using their own knowledge and
interpretation of the limits of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, educators are trusted to
deliver curriculum using our own methods and judgements. In conclusion, the Oakes t est was
applied appropriately when considering Kapoor’s actions as those that would have been
maintained for Kapoor, his students and the persons at the Memorial Day service as fairly as
possible.
Running head: THE LAW ASSIGNMENT 7
References
Levy, D. (2018). Ethics and laws in education. Education 525 Ethics and the law powerpoint.
https://d2l.ucalgary.ca/d2l/le/content/234353/viewContent/3157404/View