The SCC emphasized on three main key points toward this case. The court ruled that the courts “must apply the hate speech prohibitions objectively”(case study). Thus, courts must determine whether a reasonable person with awareness of the context and situations would likely to consider the expression as hatred against the specific group or groups(case study). Another implication that the SCC ruled in the case is that the term “hatered” should be restricted and interpreted as extreme expressions of the emotion of “detestation” and “vilification”(Case study). This filters out expression which, while repugnant and offensive, does not incite the level of abhorrence, delegitimization and rejection that risks causing discrimination or other harmful effects.