Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• The Court evaluated whether a student had proven a serious risk to her physical safety justifying a confidentiality order.

• It assessed the legal correctness of an interlocutory injunction preventing the ratification of a democratically adopted student policy.

• The threshold for overriding the principle of open court proceedings was central to the Court's analysis.

• The judgment clarified that injunctions limiting freedom of expression must meet an exceptionally high legal standard.

• The student failed to demonstrate irreparable harm sufficient to restrict the student association’s expressive rights.

• The Court emphasized that judicial interference in the internal affairs of a student association requires compelling justification.

Context and procedural history

This case arose from a dispute involving the Student Society of McGill University (SSMU) and a student, anonymized as “X,” relating to a referendum question adopted in the Fall 2023 session. The referendum question asked students whether they supported the adoption of the “Policy Against Genocide in Palestine.” The policy condemned the actions of Israeli forces in Gaza, called on McGill University to sever ties with institutions complicit in those actions, and urged public statements of solidarity with Palestinian and Arab students.

X, a Jewish undergraduate student at McGill, served as the president of the “No” campaign opposing the policy. Before the vote concluded, X filed a request for a provisional and interlocutory injunction to prevent the vote count and policy ratification. After the vote concluded—with 78.7% of 8,401 voters in favour—X filed a second motion seeking permanent injunctive relief, $100,000 in moral damages, and $25,000 in punitive damages. The parties agreed to a safeguard order, temporarily preventing implementation of the policy until the court heard the interlocutory motion.

In addition, X requested a confidentiality order to keep her identity anonymous, citing safety concerns, emotional distress, and rising tensions on campus linked to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. McGill University, as an interested party, supported the request for confidentiality but remained neutral on the injunction itself.

Superior Court decision

On May 22, 2024, the Superior Court granted both the confidentiality order and the interlocutory injunction. The judge found that X had established a serious risk to her safety based on social media messages and the general climate on campus. He also concluded there was an arguable case that the policy violated the SSMU Constitution’s commitment to human dignity and non-discrimination. The court found that not enjoining the ratification of the policy would cause irreparable harm to X and members of McGill’s Jewish community and held that the balance of convenience favoured the injunction.

Appeal to the Québec Court of Appeal

The SSMU appealed both rulings. On April 17, 2025, the Québec Court of Appeal unanimously allowed the appeal.

Confidentiality and open court principle

The Court held that the Superior Court judge committed a reviewable error in granting the confidentiality order. Applying the three-part test from the Supreme Court’s decision in Sherman (Succession) v. Donovan, the Court concluded that X had failed to establish a serious risk to an important public interest—her personal safety—as required to justify an exception to the open court principle. The Court emphasized that most of the social media comments occurred before legal proceedings began, were not directed personally at X, and did not demonstrate a credible physical threat. The Court also highlighted that X’s identity had already been public on campus, rendering anonymity illusory.

Injunction and freedom of expression

Regarding the interlocutory injunction, the Court determined that the lower court had applied the wrong legal framework. In cases involving freedom of expression, particularly political expression, the standard for issuing injunctive relief is extremely high. The Court held that the policy, although politically charged and controversial, was not manifestly defamatory or unlawful. It emphasized that such speech is protected under the Canadian Charter and that courts should not interfere in democratic processes unless clear legal violations exist.

The Court also underscored that student associations are private, democratically governed corporations, and courts should refrain from intervening in their internal affairs unless all internal remedies are exhausted. In this case, the dispute resolution mechanisms outlined in the agreement between McGill University and SSMU, including arbitration, had not been triggered.

Final disposition

The Québec Court of Appeal:

• Allowed the appeal;

• Set aside the Superior Court’s decision;

• Rejected the request for a confidentiality order;

• Rejected the interlocutory injunction;

• Ordered that costs follow the outcome of the litigation.

The Court reaffirmed the primacy of the open court principle, the heightened threshold for limiting expression, and the need to respect internal governance structures within student organizations. It ruled that no sufficient legal basis had been established to interfere with the implementation of a student policy adopted through a valid referendum.