This work considers the legal impediments to farming in an urban environment with a particular focus on the municipal bylaws that prohibit the keeping of hens in Saskatoon. The jurisdictional competency of Saskatoon to prohibit the keeping of urban hens is challenged under both municipal law and constitutional law, and more broadly, under the general premise that liberty interests should often prevail where a bylaw is arbitrary, misinformed, and restricts the pursuit of truth and human flourishing. Saskatoon’s urban hen prohibition is argued to be premised more on a form of moral reasoning that unnecessarily distinguishes between rural and urban environments, and less, if at all, on empirical evidence. Urban agriculture is often undertaken to address the environmental and social shortfalls of the global food system, such as the system’s connection with climate change, animal welfare issues, and challenges associated with the distribution of food. Moreover, urban agriculture is a means of protecting the rights of producers and consumers, as articulated by the food sovereignty movement. In this work, a claimant’s desire to advance food rights (including food sovereignty) through the keeping of urban hens is argued to engage the guarantee to freedom of expression and freedom of conscience under Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This work explores the possibility of protecting the manifestation of social and environmental action through the guarantee to freedom of conscience. This work develops a cursory test for determining where a claimant’s guarantee to freedom of conscience is violated, drawing on the well established protection of freedom of expression and freedom of religion.