Canada’s Courts Never Ruled Out Tamil Genocide in Sri Lanka; TGEWA Law Was Upheld

Subscribe to our WhatsApp Channel

When a claim touches the raw nerve of what happened in the final months of Sri Lanka’s war, it travels fast, and this one raced across Sinhala-language social media. The posts announced a courtroom victory abroad: that a legal battle led by Dr. Neville Hewage, an affiliated professor at Laurentian University in Canada, had forced three Canadian courts, including the country’s Supreme Court, to rule that no Tamil genocide ever took place in Sri Lanka, and that this “lie” had therefore been kept out of a Canadian province’s school curriculum. Here are the posts that carried it.

Social Media Posts

Several Sri Lankan websites and social media accounts circulated articles and posts claiming that, as a result of a legal battle led by Dr. Neville Hewage, a professor at Laurentian University in Canada, three courts (the Ontario Superior Court, the Ontario Court of Appeal, and the Supreme Court of Canada) had ruled that no Tamil genocide occurred in Sri Lanka, thereby invalidating the Tamil Genocide Education Week Act (TGEWA) and rendering it ineligible for inclusion in the Canadian school curriculum going forward.

Facebook  |  Archived Link

Given how widely such posts had circulated, and prompted by reader requests to verify their accuracy, we investigated the matter as follows.

Fact-Check

TGEWA law is an education-and-awareness measure, not a court finding

The Tamil Genocide Education Week Act (TGEWA), passed by the Ontario Legislature in 2021, designates the seven-day period ending May 18 each year as a week for raising public awareness about the Tamil genocide.

Who challenged the law, and on what grounds

Bill 104 was challenged first before a lower court and subsequently before the Ontario Court of Appeal by several Sri Lankan-Canadian organizations and individuals:

•  Sri Lankan Canadian Action Coalition (SLCAC)

•  Sri Lanka Canada Association of Brampton (SLCAB)

•  Dr. Neville Hewage (affiliated professor at Laurentian University and a policy analyst at the Ontario Centre for Policy Research)

They presented three main arguments before the court, contending that the law was unconstitutional.

Lack of provincial authority: They argued that matters such as international relations, foreign policy, and declarations of war fall under the jurisdiction of Canada’s federal government, not a provincial government like Ontario’s. They therefore contended that Ontario lacked the legal authority to declare an event that occurred in another country (Sri Lanka) a “genocide.”

Absence of legal recognition: They pointed out that no official international legal body (such as the International Criminal Court, the International Court of Justice, or the United Nations) had ever formally ruled that a Tamil genocide occurred in Sri Lanka and argued it was wrong for a provincial government to enact such legislation unilaterally.

Violation of the Canadian Charter of Rights: They argued the law violated the freedom of expression guaranteed under Section 2(b) and the right to equality guaranteed under Section 15(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, contending that such legislation risked marginalizing and discriminating against the Sinhalese community in Canada. Sources are here, here, and here.

The Ontario Superior Court upheld the law as constitutional (2022 ONSC 3849)

On June 28, 2022, Justice Jasmine Akbarali dismissed all petitions filed by the Sinhalese organizations and Dr. Neville Hewage, ruling for the first time that the law was fully constitutional and valid. The key points of that ruling are summarized below.

The law’s nature is “educational.”  The judge ruled that the core purpose of Bill 104 was to raise public awareness and provide education about the Tamil genocide, which the Ontario Legislature had concluded took place in Sri Lanka alongside other genocides in world history. Since Section 93 of the Canadian Constitution grants provincial governments full authority over “education,” she held that Ontario had not exceeded its jurisdiction (not ultra vires).

Comparison with other historical events. She stated that Ontario had full legal authority to enact such legislation for educational or commemorative purposes, no differently from laws provincial governments have passed to recognize and commemorate the Holocaust.

Rejection of the human-rights argument. Rejecting the claim that the law violated the Sinhalese community’s freedom of expression or right to equality, she ruled that the law imposes no legal penalty or compulsion on anyone, but merely encourages the learning of history, and therefore infringes no one’s rights.

The court did not rule on whether a genocide happened. The court clarified that it was not conducting an independent legal inquiry into whether a genocide actually occurred in Sri Lanka. What it considered was solely whether the Ontario government had the authority to enact such a law. Additional details here, here, and here. Archived Link

The Ontario Court of Appeal confirmed the ruling (2024 ONCA 657)

The plaintiff organizations, having lost before the lower court, appealed to the Ontario Court of Appeal. Reviewing the case, the Court of Appeal found the law’s purpose broader than initially assessed, stating that it was not confined to the formal “education” taught in schools or universities. It identified the true purpose as commemorating the historical experience of the Tamil community that migrated to Canada after being displaced by Sri Lanka’s war and promoting human rights and multiculturalism within Canada.

Under the Canadian Constitution, a provincial government holds full authority to legislate for the protection of human rights and cultural diversity within its province. Accordingly, the Court of Appeal ruled that re-characterizing the law’s basis from strictly “educational” to “human rights and community commemoration” did not undermine its validity in any way.

On the discrimination argument, and according to an analysis by law firm Lerners LLP and a report by Law Times News, the Court of Appeal completely rejected it. It held that the law creates no legal disadvantage, penalty, or discriminatory treatment against any group or individual; that it was simply a policy decision by the state to commemorate the past tragedy of one immigrant community and raise awareness of the human-rights violations they endured; and that the mere presence of the word “genocide” in its preamble carries no legal consequences for any individual or state. The court dismissed that argument as a “red herring.”

More details here, here, and here.

The Supreme Court of Canada declined the appeal, making the law final (March 27, 2025)

The plaintiff organizations and Dr. Neville Hewage sought to appeal the Court of Appeal’s ruling to Canada’s highest court. However, the Supreme Court officially refused to hear the appeal. As is customary under Canadian procedure, such refusals are issued without reasons, meaning the court expressed no opinion on the merits of the case, thereby bringing the litigation to a close.

Under Canadian law, when the Supreme Court declines to hear an appeal, the ruling of the lower court, in this case the Ontario Court of Appeal, becomes the final and binding decision. Accordingly, Ontario’s Tamil Genocide Education Week Act (TGEWA / Bill 104) now stands as a fully constitutional and valid law within Canada.

The Tamil-Canadian organization National Council of Canadian Tamils has continued observing the commemorative week ending May 18 in Ontario, as documented here.

The courts never ruled that “no genocide occurred”

All three cases addressed not the historical question of whether a Tamil genocide actually occurred, but the constitutional question of whether the TGEWA fell within Ontario’s legislative authority and whether it violated the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In a statement issued by the Sri Lankan Canadian Action Coalition itself, the coalition makes clear that the core purpose of its case was never to have a court determine whether the Tamil genocide happened, but purely to argue the constitutional questions of jurisdiction and rights. The appellate history is also summarized here.

Where did the false claim come from, and how it was corrected

The claim traces back to a statement Dr. Hewage gave to the Sri Lankan newspaper The Island, in which he was reported as saying all three courts had ruled that no Tamil genocide occurred. Days later, a rebuttal letter by Canadian lawyer Viresh Fernando, published in The Island, pointed out that Canada’s Supreme Court had reached no such conclusion whatsoever and that the claim was entirely false. The newspaper itself acknowledged that its original report had been based solely on Dr. Hewage’s own statements, as noted here.

Join us to learn more about our fact-check investigations.

Facebook  |  Twitter  |  Instagram  |  Google News  |  TikTok

Conclusion

Our fact-check establishes that none of Canada’s three courts (the Ontario Superior Court, the Ontario Court of Appeal, or the Supreme Court of Canada) ever ruled that no Tamil genocide occurred in Sri Lanka. All three proceedings addressed solely whether the Tamil Genocide Education Week Act (TGEWA) was constitutional. The Superior Court (2022 ONSC 3849) and the Ontario Court of Appeal (2024 ONCA 657) both upheld the law as valid, and because the Supreme Court of Canada declined to hear the further appeal on March 27, 2025, the Court of Appeal’s ruling stands as final, dismissing the challenge brought by Dr. Hewage and his fellow plaintiffs. The claims that Canada’s courts “ruled no Tamil genocide occurred” and that the TGEWA was struck down are therefore demonstrably false, as confirmed by the court records on CanLII and the Supreme Court of Canada, reporting by Law Times News and the Tamil Guardian, and The Island’s own correction.

This “False” rating applies specifically to the claim that the courts ruled no genocide occurred. These rulings say nothing about the separate historical and international-legal debate over whether the events of the final stage of the 2009 civil war constitute genocide.