Municipal Bubble-Zone Bylaws Are Unnecessary and Likely Unconstitutional
Municipalities across Ontario are being pressured by lobby groups to pass so-called “bubble zone” bylaws to prevent legal protests they do not like. Such bylaws do two things. First, they prohibit already illegal behaviour like violence, threats of violence, preventing access to buildings, and harassment on public property (streets, sidewalks, parks) within a certain distance of designated infrastructure, such as religious centres, school buildings, hospitals, and childcare facilities. Second, they prohibit legal free expression on public property within the restricted zone.
That’s the rub. For already illegal behaviour, the bylaws are unnecessary because the police have existing laws they can enforce. For the legal expression and assembly, the bylaw are most likely unconstitutional violations of our rights to expressive freedom under Section 2 of Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Toronto recently passed just such a bylaw, despite being told by police that it was unnecessary, despite being warned by the City’s Solicitor that it may be unconstitutional, and despite the opposition of most of those who participated in the City broad consultation on the issue – including the Centre for Free Expression and the Canadian Civil Liberties Association.
In a letter to City Council, more than 20 legal clinics in Toronto, along with other signatories, made clear that such a bylaw was unwarranted and a violation of the rights of all Torontonians and would have the greatest negative effect on the most marginalized in our community. They make this case more eloquently than I could so, with their permission, I am sharing their letter with you and with municipal leaders who are thinking of going down the same unnecessary and unconstitutional road as Toronto:
Public demonstrations are not a nuisance – they are a lifeline for marginalized and equity-seeking communities in our city. We write as members of community legal clinics and legal organizations in the City of Toronto serving low-income and vulnerable Torontonians. Our clients and communities have little access to traditional halls of power. Public protest is often the only way they can shine a spotlight on injustices and demand change. Many of our clinics’ clients are themselves targets of hate, discrimination, and violence. We urge you to consider the grave harm that the proposed bylaw would inflict on those very communities it purports to protect. Far from protecting vulnerable people, this bylaw will silence and criminalize them.
From our point of view as lawyers and legal practitioners, the law is clear. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms enshrines freedom of expression (section 2(b)) and freedom of peaceful assembly (section 2(c)). Together, they protect activities like demonstrations, protests, rallies, sit-ins, and vigils. The very spaces this proposed bylaw seeks to restrict – our sidewalks, streets, and other public areas – have long been where ordinary people gather to make their voices heard. We echo the serious concerns raised by the Canadian Civil Liberties Association in its April 1 letter to you.
We are especially concerned by rhetoric that conflates protests with hate or danger. Peaceful protest, by its nature, can be loud, disruptive, and uncomfortable to witness – but that does not make it violent or criminal. Feeling disturbed or offended is never a legal justification to shut down someone’s expression. The Court of Appeal for Ontario made this abundantly clear in Bracken v. Fort Erie. In that case, a town tried to ban a vociferous protester from public property because staff felt “unsafe” around him. The Court firmly rebuked this overreach, stating: “Violence is not the mere absence of civility… A person’s subjective feelings of disquiet, unease, and even fear, are not in themselves capable of ousting expression” from the protection of the Charter. As the Court observed, “[i]n a free and democratic society, citizens are not to be handcuffed and removed from public space traditionally used for the expression of dissent because of the discomfort their protest causes.”
The proposed bylaw is framed as a measure to keep Torontonians “safe from hate” by creating buffer zones around “vulnerable institutions” (such as places of worship, faith-based schools, and cultural centers). Hateful expression is morally unacceptable – but rather than target hateful expression, the proposed bylaw would create a sweeping ban on peaceful protest. Places of worship, schools, and other institutions perceived as vulnerable often engage in political speech and activity that may legitimately attract public protest.
Unfortunately, the draft policy contemplates an extremely broad restriction: it would apply to public areas like streets and sidewalks near a long list of sites encompassing every corner of the city. A conceptual map prepared by Patrick Cain at TorontoToday.ca shows the scale of the prospective restriction [that the 50 meter zone passed by City Council would create] - it would become impossible to march down [many] major street(s) in most corners of the city, and especially the downtown core, without encroaching on the proposed bubble zones.
The City’s public-facing materials claim the proposed bylaw is “not intended to prohibit peaceful and lawful demonstrations,” yet that is precisely what it will do. By imposing bubble zones in public space, the bylaw would prohibit many lawful, non-violent protests in those zones merely because someone deems them offensive or disruptive.
Finally, we wish to highlight who will be most impacted if this bylaw is enacted. It will not be the purveyors of hate that are sidelined – it will be marginalized communities and their allies raising their voices for justice and liberation.
The stated impetus for this law has been the ongoing Palestinian solidarity demonstrations that have filled Toronto’s streets since October 2023. We have already heard one City Councillor characterize these largely peaceful mass protests as “anarchy” on our streets. Such exaggerated claims underscore our fear that the bylaw will be used to crack down on Palestinian solidarity protesters and other marginalized groups who are speaking up against oppression.
We cannot ignore the broader historical pattern: laws created to curb “offensive” protests are almost always used against the oppressed. Once a broad limit on protest is on the books, it is far too easy for authorities to apply it selectively to silence critics of the status quo. Our legal clinics have seen this firsthand. It is our clients – Indigenous, Black, and other racialized people, unhoused people, newcomers, survivors of violence – who get carded, ticketed, or arrested when public space is heavily regulated. If a new bylaw further empowers officers to disperse protesters based on a vaguely defined “nuisance” or perceived intimidation, we have no doubt it will be disproportionately used against those advocating for social change, not those spewing hate. This is a deeply troubling outcome that Council must avoid.
The right to be seen and heard in public spaces is especially vital for those who have been historically marginalized. We urge you to protect that right. Reject this overreaching bylaw, and instead work hand-in-hand with communities on solutions that target actual harm without trammeling on peaceful dissent.
For list of signatories, click here
