Connect with us
[bsa_pro_ad_space id=12]

National

Canadian town appeals ruling that forces them to pay LGBT group over ‘pride’ flag dispute

Published

6 months ago

4 minute read

From LifeSiteNews

By Anthony Murdoch

The irony of the ruling is that Emo’s town hall doesn’t even have a flagpole 

A Canadian town has announced it will seek a “judicial review” regarding a decision that saw it being mandated by a tribunal to pay an LGBT group thousands of dollars because it refused to cave to activists’ demands by declaring June “Pride Month” and flying the related rainbow flag.

In a media statement Thursday, the town of Emo, Ontario, said it has “decided to seek judicial review of the decision of the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario. As the matter is proceeding to the Divisional Court, we will not be commenting further at this time.” 

The town noted that it wished “to state that it made a Declaration of Equality in 2022, which remains in effect today.” 

“The Township recognizes the dignity and worth of all people, as well as the barriers of discrimination and disadvantage faced by human rights protected groups, including members of the LGBTQ2+ community,” said the town in its 2022 declaration.  

As reported by LifeSiteNews, last month Mayor Harold McQuaker of Emo, Ontario, was ordered by an Ontario Human Rights Tribunal to pay local LGBT activist group Borderland Pride $5,000 for refusing to celebrate the LGBT agenda during the month of June. The town was also ordered to pay $10,000.  

Specifically, the mayor and town had refused to cave to demands to fly the LGBT “Pride flag” and declare the month of June to be “Pride Month.”

After the mayor refused to pay, his bank account appears to have been garnished to pay for damages ordered against him by the tribunal.  

McQuaker had publicly protested the tribunal’s orders, calling them a form of “extortion.” In a vulgar Facebook post, Borderland Pride claimed they were successful in forcing money from the mayor via the garnishing of his bank funds. 

“Sure, sex is great, but have you ever garnished your mayor’s bank account after he publicly refused to comply with a Tribunal’s order to pay damages?” wrote the group on Facebook. 

Ontario adjudicator Karen Dawson wrote in her decision against McQuaker that “$15,000 is an appropriate level of compensation for Borderland Pride’s injury to dignity, feelings and self-respect.” 

The irony of the ruling is that Emo’s town hall doesn’t even have a flagpole.   

Emo is not the only town in Canada that has recently banned the flying of “Pride” flags from municipal buildings. 

As reported by LifeSiteNews, residents of the Canadian town of Barrhead, Alberta, recently voted in a solid majority to pass a bylaw that will in effect ban pro-LGBT “Pride” themed designs from being displayed on public infrastructure, including such flags on government buildings and rainbow painted crosswalks.  

Residents in the Alberta town of Westlock likewise passed a bylaw that bans all non-governmental flags from municipal buildings and mandates that crosswalks only be painted in the standard white-striped pattern.  

The LGBT indoctrination in Canadian cities and towns via “Pride month,” which often includes flags and painted crosswalks, has been described by LifeSiteNews columnist Jonathon Van Maren as “not a ‘celebration of Pride,’” but as “an assertion of ownership, a declaration of dominance” over “public spaces.”  

Van Maren recently observed celebrated the Emo mayor, writing, “Harold McQuaker isn’t having any of it (LGBT activists demands). And we need more like him.”

Related Topics:

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

More from this author
Alberta / 1 hour ago

Alberta judge sides with LGBT activists, allows ‘gender transitions’ for kids to continue

Alberta / 5 hours ago

Why the West’s separatists could be just as big a threat as Quebec’s

Business / 7 hours ago

Massive government child-care plan wreaking havoc across Ontario

Business

Massive government child-care plan wreaking havoc across Ontario

Published on June 30, 2025

By

From the Fraser Institute

By Matthew Lau

It’s now more than four years since the federal Liberal government pledged $30 billion in spending over five years for $10-per-day national child care, and more than three years since Ontario’s Progressive Conservative government signed a $13.2 billion deal with the federal government to deliver this child-care plan.

Not surprisingly, with massive government funding came massive government control. While demand for child care has increased due to the government subsidies and lower out-of-pocket costs for parents, the plan significantly restricts how child-care centres operate (including what items participating centres may purchase), and crucially, caps the proportion of government funds available to private for-profit providers.

What have families and taxpayers got for this enormous government effort? Widespread child-care shortages across Ontario.

For example, according to the City of Ottawa, the number of children (aged 0 to 5 years) on child-care waitlists has ballooned by more than 300 per cent since 2019, there are significant disparities in affordable child-care access “with nearly half of neighbourhoods underserved, and limited access in suburban and rural areas,” and families face “significantly higher” costs for before-and-after-school care for school-age children.

In addition, Ottawa families find the system “complex and difficult to navigate” and “fewer child care options exist for children with special needs.” And while 42 per cent of surveyed parents need flexible child care (weekends, evenings, part-time care), only one per cent of child-care centres offer these flexible options. These are clearly not encouraging statistics, and show that a government-knows-best approach does not properly anticipate the diverse needs of diverse families.

Moreover, according to the Peel Region’s 2025 pre-budget submission to the federal government (essentially, a list of asks and recommendations), it “has maximized its for-profit allocation, leaving 1,460 for-profit spaces on a waitlist.” In other words, families can’t access $10-per-day child care—the central promise of the plan—because the government has capped the number of for-profit centres.

Similarly, according to Halton Region’s pre-budget submission to the provincial government, “no additional families can be supported with affordable child care” because, under current provincial rules, government funding can only be used to reduce child-care fees for families already in the program.

And according to a March 2025 Oxford County report, the municipality is experiencing a shortage of child-care staff and access challenges for low-income families and children with special needs. The report includes a grim bureaucratic predication that “provincial expansion targets do not reflect anticipated child care demand.”

Child-care access is also a problem provincewide. In Stratford, which has a population of roughly 33,000, the municipal government reports that more than 1,000 children are on a child-care waitlist. Similarly in Port Colborne (population 20,000), the city’s chief administrative officer told city council in April 2025 there were almost 500 children on daycare waitlists at the beginning of the school term. As of the end of last year, Guelph and Wellington County reportedly had a total of 2,569 full-day child-care spaces for children up to age four, versus a waitlist of 4,559 children—in other words, nearly two times as many children on a waitlist compared to the number of child-care spaces.

More examples. In Prince Edward County, population around 26,000, there are more than 400 children waitlisted for licensed daycare. In Kawartha Lakes and Haliburton County, the child-care waitlist is about 1,500 children long and the average wait time is four years. And in St. Mary’s, there are more than 600 children waitlisted for child care, but in recent years town staff have only been able to move 25 to 30 children off the wait list annually.

The numbers speak for themselves. Massive government spending and control over child care has created havoc for Ontario families and made child-care access worse. This cannot be a surprise. Quebec’s child-care system has been largely government controlled for decades, with poor results. Why would Ontario be any different? And how long will Premier Ford allow this debacle to continue before he asks the new prime minister to rethink the child-care policy of his predecessor?

Matthew Lau

Adjunct Scholar, Fraser Institute
Continue Reading

Business

Canada Caves: Carney ditches digital services tax after criticism from Trump

Published on June 30, 2025

By

From The Center Square

By

Canada caved to President Donald Trump demands by pulling its digital services tax hours before it was to go into effect on Monday.

Trump said Friday that he was ending all trade talks with Canada over the digital services tax, which he called a direct attack on the U.S. and American tech firms. The DST required foreign and domestic businesses to pay taxes on some revenue earned from engaging with online users in Canada.

“Based on this egregious Tax, we are hereby terminating ALL discussions on Trade with Canada, effective immediately,” the president said. “We will let Canada know the Tariff that they will be paying to do business with the United States of America within the next seven day period.”

By Sunday, Canada relented in an effort to resume trade talks with the U.S., it’s largest trading partner.

“To support those negotiations, the Minister of Finance and National Revenue, the Honourable François-Philippe Champagne, announced today that Canada would rescind the Digital Services Tax (DST) in anticipation of a mutually beneficial comprehensive trade arrangement with the United States,” according to a statement from Canada’s Department of Finance.

Canada’s Department of Finance said that Prime Minister Mark Carney and Trump agreed to resume negotiations, aiming to reach a deal by July 21.

U.S. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick said Monday that the digital services tax would hurt the U.S.

“Thank you Canada for removing your Digital Services Tax which was intended to stifle American innovation and would have been a deal breaker for any trade deal with America,” he wrote on X.

Earlier this month, the two nations seemed close to striking a deal.

Trump said he and Carney had different concepts for trade between the two neighboring countries during a meeting at the G7 Summit in Kananaskis, in the Canadian Rockies.

Asked what was holding up a trade deal between the two nations at that time, Trump said they had different concepts for what that would look like.

“It’s not so much holding up, I think we have different concepts, I have a tariff concept, Mark has a different concept, which is something that some people like, but we’re going to see if we can get to the bottom of it today.”

Shortly after taking office in January, Trump hit Canada and Mexico with 25% tariffs for allowing fentanyl and migrants to cross their borders into the U.S. Trump later applied those 25% tariffs only to goods that fall outside the free-trade agreement between the three nations, called the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement.

Trump put a 10% tariff on non-USMCA compliant potash and energy products. A 50% tariff on aluminum and steel imports from all countries into the U.S. has been in effect since June 4. Trump also put a 25% tariff on all cars and trucks not built in the U.S.

Economists, businesses and some publicly traded companies have warned that tariffs could raise prices on a wide range of consumer products.

Trump has said he wants to use tariffs to restore manufacturing jobs lost to lower-wage countries in decades past, shift the tax burden away from U.S. families, and pay down the national debt.

A tariff is a tax on imported goods paid by the person or company that imports them. The importer can absorb the cost of the tariffs or try to pass the cost on to consumers through higher prices.

Trump’s tariffs give U.S.-produced goods a price advantage over imported goods, generating revenue for the federal government.

Continue Reading

Trending

X