Quebec comedian seeks to appeal ruling he must pay $35,000 to artist he mocked

MONTREAL — A Quebec comedian is seeking permission to appeal a ruling he must pay $35,000 to a young artist for mocking his appearance and singing.

The Quebec Human Rights Tribunal ruled last month that Mike Ward made discriminatory comments about Jeremy Gabriel’s handicap during shows between 2010 and 2013.

Gabriel, who is now 19, has Treacher Collins syndrome, a congenital disorder characterized by craniofacial deformities.

He is well-known in Quebec and sang for the pope in 2006. He has also performed for Celine Dion.

Ward’s lawyer, Julius Grey, filed documents in the Quebec Court of Appeal on Thursday and alleges the judge at the human rights tribunal made factual and legal errors in his ruling.

SOUND OFF

SOUND OFF: Removing bathroom doors at Barriere Secondary increases safety concerns

Apr 02, 2026

Looped In

LOOPED IN WITH NIKKI OMEN: April 2, 2026

Apr 02, 2026

SOUND OFF

SOUND OFF: Kamloops deserves the full story

Apr 01, 2026

Grey, who is also appealing a decision that Ward must give Gabriel’s mother $7,000, says the judge did not take into account that the comedian’s comments are protected by freedom of expression.

“The quality of democracy isn’t the same if we put limits on freedom of expression,” he told The Canadian Press in a phone interview.

The documents Grey filed in court also warn that the tribunal’s decision, if not reversed, could set a dangerous precedent.

“Without the intervention of the appeals court, the judgment will necessarily result in self-censorship by those who participate in public debate,” they read.

In a video of one of Ward’s performances, he can be seen calling Gabriel ugly and wondering why he hasn’t died five years after getting his wish to sing in front of the pope.

Gabriel said last month he was disappointed when he learned Ward would likely appeal.

“It’s a lack of understanding, on his part, of the reasons for the complaint, the reasoning of the human rights tribunal, and of the cause he claims to defend: freedom of expression,” he said.

Gabriel said the case was more about discrimination than free speech.

“In this case, freedom of expression is a false debate,” he said. “When you use discriminatory motives that incite hatred, you can’t talk about freedom of expression.

“The jokes and the skit of (the show) can’t be defended under freedom of expression because they directly attack my rights, my right to equality. That’s mainly what I wanted to prove.”

The judge in the case said two basic rights were in play: freedom of expression and the right to protection against discriminatory comments. He ruled in favour of the latter.

“Unacceptable remarks made in private do not automatically become lawful just because they’re made by a comedian in the public domain,” wrote Judge Scott Hughes. “Plus, having a such a platform imposes certain responsibilities.”

The Canadian Press