08/16/2026
Thank you to everyone who has supported us over the past few years—especially the heroes who stood with us on February 17.
You showed up peacefully, quietly and passively—the Canadian way. You stood your ground, defended our Charter rights and helped win back the public’s right to record North Huron council meetings.
You are the real Canadians: peaceful, determined and unwilling to surrender your rights.
The Free Press is covering this important story. With your encouragement, perhaps the traditional media will finally start covering it too.
Please read and share the Free Press coverage below.
===============================
(North Huron, Wingham, Ontario) — A constitutional battle over freedom of expression, government transparency and the public’s right to record elected officials will be heard by the Ontario Superior Court of Justice on Wednesday, August 19, 2026, at 10:00 a.m.
The case, Hill and Carther v. Township of North Huron and Nelson Santos, Court File No. CV-26-00000011-0000, concerns much more than two residents, two cellphones or one small Ontario municipality.
It asks a question that reaches to the foundation of Canadian democracy:
Can municipal officials exclude citizens from public council meetings for recording their elected representatives and asserting their Charter rights?
Stephen “Buck” Hill and Bradley Carther say the answer must be no.
Their application asks the Superior Court to declare that North Huron’s former absolute prohibition against public recording violated freedom of expression under section 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. They also seek declarations that the six-month trespass notices imposed upon them violated their Charter rights and that CAO Nelson Santos lacked lawful authority to issue those notices.
The hearing is scheduled to proceed virtually through the Superior Court in Goderich.
Who Is the Occupier—Council or the CAO?
Hill and Carther advance another fundamental argument: although the Trespass to Property Act permits an “occupier” or an authorized person to issue a trespass notice, they maintain that the relevant occupier during a public council meeting is the Township acting through its elected council—not the CAO acting alone.
Under the Municipal Act, municipal powers are generally exercised by council, normally through a bylaw or resolution. The Act separately authorizes the head of council or presiding officer to expel a person for improper conduct at a particular meeting. Hill and Carther argue that this structure does not give an unelected CAO an independent power to prohibit citizens from attending future council meetings.
In their view, if North Huron intended to impose a prospective exclusion or delegate that extraordinary power to Santos or another official, council first had to address the matter lawfully: place it before council, debate it, vote on it and adopt a resolution or bylaw granting the necessary authority. The applicants say no such bylaw or resolution authorized Santos to issue the notices against them.
This issue reaches beyond North Huron. If a CAO can independently decide who may enter a public council chamber without clearly delegated authority or a vote of the elected council, an unelected administrator could potentially control public access to the very institution that is supposed to hold that administrator accountable. Hill and Carther argue that this is incompatible with open government, democratic accountability and the statutory requirement that council meetings generally remain open to the public.
The Township disputes this position and maintains that Santos possessed authority to issue the notices. The Superior Court will decide whether that claimed authority existed and whether the notices were lawfully issued.
February 17: The Community Stood Up
The turning point came on February 17, 2026.
For more than a decade, North Huron’s procedural rules prohibited the public—including members of the news media—from independently recording council meetings. Only recording devices operated by the Township were permitted.
Hill and Carther challenged that ban by openly holding up their phones and asserting that Canadians have the right to document public officials conducting public business in a public chamber.
They were ordered to stop. When they refused to surrender what they believed were their constitutional rights, meetings were recessed, police were called, and they were removed. Trespass notices followed, including six-month notices preventing them from attending Township property in person.
The response from the community was not violence. It was not secrecy. It was passive resistance.
Hill and Carther invited residents to attend the February 17 council meeting with their cameras up. According to their filed evidence, attendees were given a written code of conduct stressing that everyone was to remain peaceful and non-disruptive.
The movement’s instructions were simple:
Remain peaceful. Do not disrupt the meeting. Keep the cameras up.
Hill and Carther were arrested before the meeting began for allegedly violating the trespass notices. But members of the community continued to stand peacefully for transparency.
North Huron was finally forced to make a decision: arrest everyone willing to record—or confront the constitutional problem with its sweeping ban.
Council chose to back down.
At that February 17 meeting, North Huron suspended the recording prohibition. Council later amended its procedure bylaw to permit public recording, subject to reasonable restrictions against hazards, obstruction, interference with the Township’s livestream, harassment or intimidation.
After more than ten years, North Huron’s absolute recording ban was finished.
Passive resistance worked.
The people stood peacefully, cameras in hand, and their municipal government changed course.
A Case That Mirrors Bracken
The legal similarities to the landmark Bracken cases are impossible to ignore.
In Bracken v. Fort Erie, the Ontario Court of Appeal considered a one-year trespass notice imposed upon a critic of municipal government. The Court recognized that the area around a town hall is a traditional and expected place for political expression and public dissent in a free and democratic society.
The Court of Appeal found that excluding a citizen from public property is no small matter and ruled that Fort Erie’s sweeping one-year exclusion was not sufficiently justified.
In the related Bracken v. Niagara case, the Superior Court considered another municipal trespass notice issued following confrontational—but non-violent—conduct that included recording council members. The Court found that less restrictive alternatives were available and concluded that the broad notice failed the Charter’s proportionality requirements.
Hill and Carther’s case presents striking parallels:
Citizens were documenting municipal officials.
The expression concerned public government and municipal accountability.
There was no finding that either applicant threatened violence.
Broad, prospective trespass notices were used instead of dealing with any alleged misconduct at a particular meeting.
The notices prevented physical attendance at future public council meetings.
The municipality had less restrictive options available.
There is also an important issue left unresolved in the earlier Bracken litigation: who actually possesses the legal authority to issue such a municipal trespass notice?
Hill and Carther argue that the Municipal Act requires municipal powers to be exercised by council through a bylaw or resolution. Their factum says North Huron had no bylaw granting Santos the authority to issue prospective trespass notices and that the Municipal Act permits the head of council or presiding officer to expel someone for improper conduct at a particular meeting—not to impose a months-long ban from future meetings.
That question could make this case significant for municipalities across Ontario.
Why the Applicants Say Their Case Is Strong
The applicants enter court with several powerful arguments grounded in Supreme Court of Canada and Ontario Court of Appeal authorities.
First, Canadian courts have repeatedly recognized that recording and broadcasting can constitute protected expressive activity. An independent recording is not necessarily equivalent to a government-controlled recording. It may capture a different perspective and preserve events when an official livestream is interrupted or turned off.
Second, council chambers are where public business is conducted. The Municipal Act generally requires council meetings to be open, and the Supreme Court has recognized that secrecy can undermine the democratic legitimacy of municipal decisions.
Third, North Huron’s old rule was not a narrow restriction aimed at genuinely disruptive recording. It was an absolute prohibition applying to every member of the public and every news-media representative, regardless of whether the recording caused any disturbance.
Fourth, the Township ultimately replaced that absolute prohibition with a narrower rule permitting recording while addressing actual hazards, obstruction, harassment and intimidation. That change supports the applicants’ position that less restrictive options were always available.
Fifth, the applicants’ factum says Santos acknowledged during cross-examination that the applicants had not threatened anyone with violence and that recording equipment could be used without disrupting council business.
Finally, the applicants argue that North Huron cannot defend a six-month ban by pointing to criticism and publications made outside council chambers. Political commentary—even harsh or disputed commentary—engages the Charter. A municipality cannot lawfully use control over public property as a back door to silence its critics.
These factors make the application substantial and closely connected to existing appellate authority. No court result is guaranteed, however, and the judge will also consider North Huron’s opposing evidence and arguments.
North Huron Asks Court to Dismiss Case
The Township denies violating the Charter and argues that the case is moot because the recording prohibition was amended and the trespass notices expired before the hearing.
North Huron says the notices were issued because of what it characterizes as disruptive, disrespectful and harassing conduct—not simply because Hill and Carther recorded council meetings. It argues that access to council’s official livestream remained available and that the applicants could have participated through remote or hybrid options.
The Township also contends that the old prohibition served legitimate objectives, including orderly meetings, participant privacy and protection of the official recording. If the court finds that Charter rights were limited, North Huron argues those limits were legally justified.
Hill and Carther dispute those characterizations. They say they were asserting their rights, that council meetings were not disrupted by their recording, that there were no threats of violence, and that the Township’s response was punitive and grossly disproportionate.
They also argue that the proceeding remains important despite the expiry of the notices. They seek vindication, face related Provincial Offences Act proceedings, and say judicial guidance is needed because they intend to continue attending and recording public meetings.
This Is About Every Canadian
A Charter right is only secure when ordinary people are willing to exercise it.
If governments can remove critics, outlaw independent cameras and then avoid judicial scrutiny simply by repealing the rule immediately before the hearing, constitutional protection becomes dangerously fragile.
This is why the Goderich hearing matters.
It is about whether citizens may create an independent record of what their government does. It is about whether public officials can punish criticism by denying critics physical access to democratic institutions. It is about whether unelected administrators may exercise powers that the law reserves for elected councils.
Most importantly, it is about whether peaceful Canadians who stand their ground and assert their rights will be protected by the Charter.
On February 17, the community rose up peacefully. Cameras went up. Citizens refused to be intimidated into silence. North Huron faced a choice and ultimately rescinded its sweeping recording ban.
Now the battle moves from the council chamber to the courtroom.
Public Encouraged to Attend
Members of the public and news media are strongly encouraged to witness this important constitutional hearing.
The hearing is scheduled for:
Wednesday, August 19, 2026
10:00 a.m.
Ontario Superior Court of Justice — Goderich
Court File No. CV-26-00000011-0000
Scheduled to proceed virtually
Anyone wishing to view or attend should contact the Goderich courthouse in advance and ask how public access will be provided:
Email: [email protected]
Telephone: 519-524-9342
When contacting the courthouse, provide the date, time and court file number. Court staff can explain whether virtual viewing information or another method of public attendance is available. Court-access directions should be followed, and no one should independently record the court proceeding without express judicial authorization.
Free speech survives when it is exercised. Democracy survives when government is watched.
On August 19, Canada’s constitutional promise of open, accountable government will be defended in a Goderich courtroom. The public should be watching.
(North Huron, Wingham, Ontario) — A constitutional battle over freedom of expression, government transparency and the public’s right to record elected officials will be heard by the Ontario Superio…
