Demonstrations: the “buffer zones” disputed in court

The Canadian Association of Civil Liberties (ACLC) challenges the constitutionality of a municipal regulation which limits the demonstrations to Vaughanin Ontario.

Last summer. Similarly, the city of Vaughanhas prohibited nuisance demonstrations less than 100 meters from places of worship, hospitals, schools, daycares and other so -called vulnerable infrastructures.

The outcome of the dispute of theACLC could make a case law, since other Ontario cities have adopted similar regulations.

L’ACLC maintains that these Tampons areas imposed by Vaughan are an unreasonable restriction to the right to demonstrate peacefully guaranteed by the Canadian Charter of Rights. Furthermore, demonstrations: “buffer zones” disputed court Freedoms. Consequently,

Although the freedom of peaceful meeting has limits. Meanwhile, these limits do not include banning disturbing, uncomfortable or disturbing demonstrationssupports the director of fundamental freedoms of theACLCAnaïs Bussières McNicoll.

Regulations that limit peaceful demonstrations must absolutely be targeted. However, necessary and minimally affects essential democratic rights To be constitutional, she said.

The regulations adopted in Ontario to date do not pass this testsupports Ms. Bussières McNicoll.

A security questionaccording to the mayor of Vaughan – Demonstrations: "buffer zones" disputed court

Vaughan adopted its settlement in June 2024. after a series of demonstrations before a synagogue of Thornhill.

Open in full screen

Cities like Ottawa. Brampton and Toronto, which were also the scene of numerous demonstrations against the war in Gaza, followed suit in the following months with similar measures.

Vaughan will defend his approach to court, said Mayor Steven Del Duca in a statement.

[Cette mesure] has been designed to prevent demonstrations which are not peaceful and which intimidate or incite hatred or violence. That does not demonstrations: “buffer zones” disputed court prohibit peaceful gatheringshe specifies.

The mayor calls on the Canadian government to adopt a law to standardize this type of ban across the country. During the electoral campaign. Mark Carney undertook to criminalize the obstruction of access to places of worship, community centers and educational establishments.

National action is necessary to avoid a mosaic of municipal rules. to ensure coherent protection for all Canadians.

Regulations Vaughan Defines a demonstration nuisance Like any manifestation that could lead a reasonable person to feel intimidated, regardless of the intention of the demonstrators.

L’ACLC said that she targets these regulations in her appeal because demonstrations: “buffer zones” disputed court it was the first to be adopted. but also because it is the one that contains the most important restrictions and fines.

Who will take the chance to go. demonstrate if he may be punished by $ 100,000 for having expressed ideas that a police officer or a member of the municipality will judge offensive or intolerant …. to have participated in a demonstration where someone else will have expressed themselves in an offensive waylaunches Anaïs Bussières McNicoll.

Toronto’s regulations also in sight

L’ACLC Do not close the door to a legal dispute of other regulations which create buffer zones in the future.

Vaughan’s regulation is an example […] demonstrations: “buffer zones” disputed court Perfect for all that is problematic in this kind of settlement there. so we start our dispute route at this place, but all the options remain on the table for the other municipal regulations of Ontario.

Lawrence David, professor in constitutional law at the University of Ottawa, would not find himself seeing the cause going to the Supreme Court.

He underlines that the principles at the heart of the file were also at the center of several. requests for injunction against Propalestinian camps on university campuses.

We see that the case law is a little mixeddit l’expert.

A request for injunction has. for example, been refused to McGill University when another was granted to the University of Toronto.

The Court ruled that demonstrations: “buffer zones” disputed court in all these debates. we must always balance fundamental freedoms on the one hand, but also the interests that these regulations or these injunctions seek to protectunderlines Lawrence David

He adds that lawyers defend the city of Vaughan will also have to prove that there is a rational link between the regulations and its objective.

L’ACLC said that he had submitted his request for a request for the court on Monday.

With information from Grégory Wilson