REPORT INCIDENT
If you’ve experienced or witnessed an incident, report it now. We’re here to take action and support you legally.
I need legal help. What’s my next step?
If you believe that you’ve been a victim of a legal wrong motivated by Islamophobia, please reach out to us by filling out an Incident Report Form. If it is an emergency, please immediately call 911.
Do I have to pay for legal support?
NCCM’s legal support program is supported by our donors, and that way, we can support anyone targeted by Islamophobia without them having to pay a massive legal bill.
What kind of track record does NCCM have in the courts?
NCCM’s legal team has successfully struck down government policies, had clients get their lives back after employment discrimination issues, and helped clients being unfairly targeted by national security agencies.
WE STAND AGAINST HATE AND PROTECT CIVIL LIBERTIES BY...
- Public Interest Litigation
Over the years, NCCM has led some of the most critical legal battles in Canada—from challenging discriminatory laws like Bill 21, to defending humanitarian aid organizations like UNRWA, to holding judges accountable, like in the Rania El-Alloul case. - Defend the civil liberties of our communities in the courts
From helping the families of the London terror attack and the Quebec City Mosque attack, to taking on CSIS over its treatment of whistleblowers, to suing the far-right People’s Party of Canada for defamation, we fight for justice at every level. - Coordinating a Movement of Lawyers
For lawyers and law students who want to give back to Canada on some of the most important civil liberties battles of our time, join the fight.
OUR IMPACT
CASE STUDY:
We Defeated Bill 62
On October 18, 2017, the Quebec National Assembly enacted Bill 62, An Act to foster adherence to State religious neutrality, and, in particular, to provide a framework for requests for accommodations on religious grounds in certain bodies (the “Act”). Under Bill 62, women who wear a burqa, a full-body veil, or a niqab had to show their faces while receiving a government service. Bureaucrats, police officers, teachers, and bus drivers as well as doctors, midwives, and dentists who work in publicly funded hospitals and health centres had to uncover their face because of this law.
The National Council of Canadian Muslims (NCCM) and the Canadian Civil Liberties Association (CCLA), two prominent civil liberties & advocacy organizations, filed a lawsuit in Quebec Superior Court challenging the constitutionality of Bill 62.
The lawsuit sought a court order staying the application of Section 10 of the new law, which requires individuals to uncover their faces in order to receive basic public services, including healthcare, social assistance, and public transit. This requirement directly and almost exclusively impacts those Muslim women who veil their faces according to their sincerely held religious beliefs.
By launching this constitutional challenge, the NCCM sought to protect the fundamental rights and freedoms of a vulnerable and stigmatized segment of women.
And we won.
In December 2017, the Quebec Superior Court granted the CCLA and NCCM an interim stay until July 1, 2018, pending the Quebec government’s release of official guidelines governing how the restriction on face coverings when giving or receiving public services would work in practice, including the process for granting exemptions for religious reasons.
Following the release of the official guidelines in May, the CCLA and NCCM returned to court to argue that the guidelines were inadequate for preventing serious and irreparable harm to Muslim women who choose to veil their faces on the basis of their sincerely-held religious beliefs.
In the judgement granting the stay order, Quebec Superior Court Justice Marc-André Blanchard noted that the section 10 of the law that relates face coverings appeared to be a “violation” of the Canadian and Quebec Charters, which “provide for freedom of conscience and religion”.
That is how NCCM and the CCLA defeated Bill 62 – but unfortunately, Bill 21 has taken its place.
Join us to help us stand for civil liberties.
Fighting on Behalf of Canadian Muslims
When Canadian Muslims face discrimination, we fight back. Whether it’s Islamophobic workplace policies, unjust detainments, or schools failing to accommodate religious practices, our legal team is ready to step in.
Holding Racists to Account
Islamophobes and hate-mongers have no place in Canada. That’s why we intervened in the case against Kevin J. Johnston when he spread hateful and violent rhetoric against Canadian Muslims. Our legal team played a key role in holding him accountable, ensuring that those who incite hate face real consequences. We also took legal action against the People’s Party of Canada (PPC) after a local activist in Winnipeg was defamed, making it clear that political actors must be held responsible for their words and actions.
Fighting Cases Against Bad Policy
Discriminatory laws and policies threaten the rights of Canadian Muslims every day. Whether it’s unfair travel bans, racial profiling, or government policies that disproportionately target Muslims, we take legal action to challenge and overturn unjust regulations. Our legal work extends beyond individual cases—we advocate for systemic change to ensure that bad policies don’t just get repealed, but that they are never put in place again.
SELECT SUPREME COURT CASES
Bill 21 (Ongoing)
| What’s at Stake Quebec’s Bill 21 bans some public sector employees—including teachers, police officers, and government lawyers—from wearing religious symbols at work. This law targets Muslim women who wear the hijab, as well as Sikhs, Jews, and other religious minorities, effectively forcing them to choose between their faith and their careers.The Quebec government, knowing that this law is fundamentally discriminatory, has been attempting to shield this legislation behind the notwithstanding clause, a quasi-emergency power. |
Summary Quebec’s Bill 21 is one of the most significant constitutional challenges in Canadian history. Since its passage in 2019, the law has banned public sector workers—like teachers, police officers, and government lawyers—from wearing religious symbols, disproportionately targeting Muslim women who wear the hijab, as well as Sikhs, Jews, and other religious minorities. At NCCM, we refuse to accept a Canada where people must choose between their faith and their career. That’s why we have been fighting Bill 21 in the courts from day one—and now, with leave granted by the Supreme Court of Canada, we are taking this case to the highest court in the country. Read our arguments here. Procedural History – 2019: NCCM, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association (CCLA), and individual litigants file a constitutional challenge against Bill 21 in Quebec’s Superior Court. – 2021: The Quebec Superior Court rules that Bill 21 is discriminatory but upholds the law due to the notwithstanding clause. However, the court exempts English school boards, allowing them to hire teachers who wear religious symbols. – 2023: The Quebec Court of Appeal upholds the law. – 2024: NCCM and our partners apply for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada—and leave is granted. This means the Supreme Court will hear our case, marking a crucial moment in the fight for religious freedom in Canada. Learn more about our campaign against Bill 21 here. |
R v Campbell
 |
What’s at Stake In the landmark case of R v. Campbell, the National Council of Canadian Muslims (NCCM) intervened before the Supreme Court in a case about privacy rights and warrantless searches under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. |
Summary The case centered on the actions of law enforcement officers who, after arresting a known drug dealer, seized his cellphone. Subsequently, they received text messages on the device appearing to offer drug sales. Without obtaining a warrant, the officers impersonated the arrested individual by responding to these messages, leading to the arrest of Dwayne Campbell, who was found in possession of heroin laced with fentanyl. Read our arguments at the Supreme Court of Canada here.
Decision: Campbell is a reminder for officers that there is no definitive rule for text messages carrying a reasonable expectation of privacy – which is still a case specific determination, and that the exigent circumstances exception for warrantless searches done under the CDSA must be used sparingly, where (1) there are reasonable and probable grounds, (2) there is true urgency to preserve officer safety, public safety, and/or evidence, and (3) the circumstances make it impracticable or impossible to obtain a warrant in time. General or speculative concerns about losing evidence by delaying a search warrant will not meet the exigency threshold and risks exclusion of evidence. |
Learn More |
R v Bissonnette
 |
| What’s at Stake In 2017, Alexandre Bissonnette entered the Islamic Cultural Centre of Quebec City and carried out a terrorist attack, murdering six Muslim men in cold blood and seriously injuring several others. In 2019, Bissonnette was sentenced to 40 years in prison without the possibility of parole, based on provisions of the Criminal Code that allowed judges to impose consecutive periods of parole ineligibility for mass murderers. |
Summary The Quebec Court of Appeal later ruled that stacking consecutive periods of parole inelegibility violated the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and reduced his parole ineligibility to 25 years. The Crown appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada, arguing that the original sentencing should stand. Read our arguments at the Supreme Court of Canada here. – 2019 – Bissonnette was sentenced to 40 years without parole under Criminal Code Section 745.51, which allowed parole ineligibility periods to be stacked consecutively for multiple murders. – 2022 – The Quebec Court of Appeal struck down Section 745.51 as unconstitutional, ruling that a 40-year parole ineligibility period violated the Charter. His sentence was adjusted to 25 years without parole. – 2023 – The Supreme Court of Canada unanimously upheld the Quebec Court of Appeal’s ruling, declaring that sentences exceeding 25 years without the possibility of parole violate Section 12 of the Charter. This decision struck down consecutive sentencing provisions across Canada. Decision: … |
| Learn more at Supreme Court reviews Alexandre Bissonnette’s parole eligibility |
Canada (Citizenship and Immigration)
v. Harkat, 2014 SCC 37
v. Harkat, 2014 SCC 37
 |
| What’s at Stake The case of Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v. Harkat, 2014 SCC 37 was a critical legal battle over the fairness of Canada’s security certificate regime. We intervened at the Supreme Court in challenging the system’s lack of transparency and due process, arguing that national security measures must not come at the expense of fundamental rights. |
Summary
Mohamed Harkat, an Algerian national living in Canada as a refugee claimant, was arrested in 2002 under a security certificate issued under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA). The Canadian government alleged he had ties to terrorist organizations, but the evidence against him remained largely secret, inaccessible to both him and his legal counsel. Harkat faced indefinite detention and eventual deportation to Algeria, where he feared torture. The case challenged the legality of security certificates—a system that allowed the government to use secret evidence in immigration proceedings while denying the accused a full opportunity to defend themselves.
Read our arguments here.
The Supreme Court of Canada, in a unanimous decision, upheld the security certificate against Harkat but imposed important legal safeguards:
|
R. v. N.S., 2012 SCC 72
 |
| What’s at Stake The case of R v. NS was a significant legal battle in Canada that addressed the intersection of religious freedom and the legal obligation to testify in court. We played a key role in supporting the right of Muslim women to practice their faith without being coerced into violating their religious beliefs, particularly when it came to testifying in court while wearing the niqab, a religious garment covering the face. |
| Summary The case involved NS, a Muslim woman who was asked to testify in a sexual assault trial while wearing a niqab, a veil worn by some Muslim women as part of their religious practice. The trial judge initially ruled that NS must remove her niqab to testify in order to be properly identified and questioned. This decision raised significant concerns about the freedom of religious expression and whether forcing NS to remove her niqab violated her right to practice her faith under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. We argued that compelling her to remove her niqab would infringe on her religious rights, specifically her right to religious freedom under Section 2(a) of the Charter. The case raised important questions about the balance between an individual’s religious freedoms and the need for open and fair court proceedings. The Supreme Court found that NS’s right to religious freedom was not absolute, but that the court must carefully balance that right with the need for a fair trial. Decision: This approach taken by the Court reaffirms that accommodation should be used to reconcile rights, and that if this cannot be done, assessments should be done on a case-by-case basis. Witnesses with sincere religious beliefs will be required to remove their niqab if a) it poses a significant risk to the fairness of the trial, and b) the positive factors associated with the removal of the niqab outweigh the negative factors of doing so. Significance of the Ruling In the R v NS case, the Court grappled with assumptions deeply embedded in common law criminal practice and the Criminal Code, as well as the accepted judicial view, that seeing the face of a witness assists in credibility assessment and is important to a fair trial. It also grappled with whether the niqab, as an expression of a witnesses’ deeply held religious convictions, has a place in a courtroom. By articulating a four-part test, the R v NS decision gives judges specific guidelines to use when determining whether a witness can wear a niqab while testifying in a trial. The test requires a careful balancing of competing rights and will be based on the specific facts and circumstances of each case. |
Quebec (Commission des droits
de la personne et des droits de la
jeunesse) v. Bombardier Inc. (Bombardier
Aerospace Training Center)
de la personne et des droits de la
jeunesse) v. Bombardier Inc. (Bombardier
Aerospace Training Center)
|
| What’s at Stake The case Canada (Quebec) (Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse) v. Bombardier Inc. (Bombardier Aerospace Training Center) was a significant case dealing with discrimination in the workplace, specifically the issue of religious accommodation. We intervened in this case, emphasizing the importance of protecting the rights of Muslim employees to practice their religion, particularly in the context of the workplace. |
Summary
Latif was a pilot who was denied training by Bombardier in 2004. The denial was based on a national security decision of the American authorities, a decision Bombardier applied because it did not want to imperil its standing with the Federal Aviation Authority. Latif is Pakistani. The Quebec Human Rights Tribunal found that Bombardier had discriminated against him. Although there was no direct evidence of discrimination by Bombardier, the Tribunal based its decision on an expert report and circumstantial evidence about racial profiling in the United States after 9/11.
The issue before the Supreme Court was the proper degree of proof required to establish discrimination and whether it had been met in this case.
Read our arguments here.
The Supreme Court started its analysis by noting the three elements that a plaintiff must show in order to establish a prima facie case of discrimination. These were:
|
Charkaoui v. Canada (Citizenship
and Immigration), [2007]
1 S.C.R. 350, 2007 SCC 9
and Immigration), [2007]
1 S.C.R. 350, 2007 SCC 9
 |
| What’s at Stake Charkaoui v. Canada was a pivotal case in Canadian constitutional law that challenged the government’s use of security certificates to detain non-citizens indefinitely without full disclosure of the evidence against them. We intervened in advocating for due process, fairness, and civil liberties, pushing so that national security measures do not violate fundamental rights. |
| Summary Adil Charkaoui, a permanent resident of Canada, was arrested in 2003 under a security certificate issued by the Canadian government. Security certificates—authorized under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA)—allowed the government to detain non-citizens indefinitely on national security grounds, often using secret evidence that neither the detainee nor their lawyer could see. Charkaoui was held for nearly two years without charge and released under strict conditions in 2005 while continuing his legal challenge. His case reached the Supreme Court of Canada, where he argued that the security certificate regime violated his Charter rights to liberty, fairness, and protection against arbitrary detention. Decision: In a landmark ruling, the Supreme Court of Canada struck down the IRPA security certificate regime, condemning it as a violation of fundamental rights. The Court ruled that the secrecy surrounding the process—where Federal Court judges reviewed security certificates without disclosing key evidence to the accused—denied Mr. Charkaoui, Mr. Almrei, and Mr. Harkat the ability to know the case against them and mount a proper defense. This fundamental lack of fairness, the Court found, undermined the right to a fair hearing under Section 7 of the Charter. Furthermore, the Supreme Court rejected the government’s attempt to justify this infringement under Section 1 of the Charter, stating that less intrusive alternatives, such as the use of Special Advocates, were available to protect national security while preserving due process. As a result, the Court declared the security certificate provisions unconstitutional and struck them down. The Court also addressed the detention of foreign nationals under security certificates, ruling that automatic detention without a warrant did not violate Section 9 of the Charter (protection against arbitrary detention). However, it found that the excessive delay in reviewing detentions—forcing individuals to wait 120 days before their case was assessed—was unconstitutional and could not be justified under Section 1. Finally, the Supreme Court delivered a critical warning about indefinite detention: holding someone indefinitely, without the hope of release or the opportunity to meaningfully challenge their confinement, would amount to cruel and unusual treatment under Section 12 of the Charter. However, the Court ruled that extended detention pending deportation would not necessarily violate Sections 7 and 12, as long as detainees were granted regular opportunities to challenge their imprisonment, considering all relevant factors. This ruling was a seismic victory for civil liberties in Canada, forcing the government to reform the security certificate system and reaffirming that even in matters of national security, constitutional rights cannot be cast aside. . Decision: While the Supreme Court stuck down consecutive sentencing provisions, the Court spoke in detail about the harm caused to the Muslim community, as we noted was important in our brief: [1] The crimes committed by the respondent in the Great Mosque of Québec on the fateful day of January 29, 2017 were of unspeakable horror and left deep and agonizing scars in the heart of the Muslim community and of Canadian society as a whole. We cannot help but feel sympathy for the victims and their loved ones for their irreparable losses and their indescribable pain. … [10] Given that these reasons concern the constitutionality of s. 745.51 Cr. C. and that the resulting principles will apply to many multiple murder cases, I do not think it would be appropriate to refer at length to the horrible circumstances of this case, which were summarized well by the trial judge and widely publicized in the media. However, out of respect for the victims of this tragedy, it must be said that hatred, racism, ignorance and Islamophobia were behind the appalling acts committed by the respondent on that fateful day of January 29, 2017, when he sowed terror and death in the Great Mosque of Québec. |
| Learn more at Supreme Court reviews Alexandre Bissonnette’s parole eligibility |
IMPACT STATS
650+
In the past 4 years, NCCM took on over 650 cases. 450 of them had successful outcomes for clients.
??
NCCM has appeared in front of the Supreme Court many times to challenge systemic racism and unjust laws.
??
|
NCCM has successfully led some of Canada’s most impactful constitutional litigation, such as, successfully getting an injunction to block Bill 62 in Quebec. |
LIVE CASE FILES
Hillel Case
NCCM has supported Matthew Cheesman as a plaintiff in the Hillel BC sticker ongoing proceeding.
He is suing a prominent organization and one former contractor for defamation after pro-Hamas stickers bearing the SJC’s logo were placed on campus in November. The stickers said “I [heart] Hamas” and circulated widely on social media in the wake of October 2023.
In fact, it has become clear that a “contractor” of Hillel BC was responsible for planting these stickers all over campus.
“The defamatory statement was made with actual malice, knowing it was false, for the improper or ulterior motive of impugning SJC’s reputation … and encouraging others to inflict on SJC and its leaders violence, vitriol, harassment, intimidation and hostility” reads the notice of civil claim filed in the Supreme Court of B.C. in 2024.
UNWRA
A group has filed a claim to attempt to stop Canada’s re-funding of UNRWA at the Federal Court of Canada. We will be in court to oppose that application.
UNRWA is the largest relief agency for the Palestinian people, and provides necessary life saving aid to the Palestinian people as they are being starved by the Israeli government. When the government of Canada turned off funding earlier in the year, it set a precedent globally that endangered the lives of tens of thousands of children.
Because of all of your activism, millions of dollars are scheduled to go from the Canadian government to the children of Gaza through UNRWA’s re-funding.
While many view the attempt to halt UNRWA funding in Federal Court as having a low likelihood of success, we want to be clear on the record. We will be in court, with your support, to suggest firmly that the decision to refund UNRWA should not be struck down.
Kaffala Ban
The case, which could be heard as early as April, comes more than five years after the federal government promised to review the ban introduced when the Conservatives last held office.
In 2013, Canada suddenly put a stop to adoptions from Pakistan, arguing Shariah law doesn’t allow for birth ties between a parent and child to be severed and that the Islamic principle of guardianship (kafala) could no longer be recognized as the basis for adoption. The United States, United Kingdom and Australia all continue to allow adoptions from Pakistan.
Brampton Nurse
A Brampton nurse was dismissed from her workplace after posting Quran verses and other harmless interactions on her personal social media.
It is a blatant violation of her religious freedoms and rights as a Canadian. It is another sad example of the systemic Islamophobia we have seen in recent years affect so much of this country.
We are suing the hospital as a result.
PPC Case
A local advocate in the Winnipeg community was subject to a number of defamatory comments by various members of the People’s Party of Canada (PPC).
In 2020, Oumer Kinnarath sued the People’s Party of Canada (PPC) for defamation with the assistance of the National Council of Canadian Muslims (NCCM). Kinnarath has alleged that PPC operatives defamed him called him a terrorist.
NCCM helped Oumer sue the PPC for defamation as a result.
NCCM was successful in striking down motions from the PPC. Our lawsuit continues.
Support this case here.
U of T Encampment
When the University of Toronto Governing Council sought an injunction to remove the student solidarity for Palestine encampment, NCCM intervened in court to draw the court’s attention to the biased narrative espoused by the University. This was especially clear in the depiction of these protesters as inherently or de facto hateful or violent.
The court ultimately agreed with the depiction we shared of the students: that they were “young idealists, motivated by immense human suffering” fighting for what they in good faith perceived to be an important human rights issue.