Toronto’s city manager has around places of worship, schools and child-care centres, although the so-called “bubble zones” would be temporary and much smaller than those found in other cities.
The drafted legislation is more than a year in the making and has been the subject of recurring debate at city hall. Council will vote on whether to make it law next week.
The bylaw, which would come into effect on July 2 if passed, would beÌýtargeted, short-termÌýand request-based, unique features not seen in similar legislation on the books in jurisdictions around the country. The areas where protests are prohibited would also be about one-fifth the size of those seen in other cities.
If the bylaw is passed, owners of buildings considered “social infrastructure” — synagogues, mosques and daycare centres, for exampleÌý— would be able to apply for a 180-day protest ban covering an area of 20 metres around the entrance. This would be enforced by bylaw officers who could fine violators as much as $5,000. The 180-day ban would be renewable.
For an application to be successful, the owner would have to prove there had been a demonstration outside their building within the preceding 90 days, that it prevented access inside and that they had reason to believe another protest could be expected in the future.
and ,Ìýlaws prevent protests around clinics performing abortions up to 150 metres away.ÌýCalgary restricts protests within 100 metres of city-owned recreation facilities or libraries after protests that targeted LGBTQ events. In Vaughan, demonstrations must take place 100 metres away from “vulnerable social infrastructure,” such as places of worship.
Supporters say pc28¹ÙÍøneeds what have come to be called protest-free “bubble zones” around centres of religious and cultural importance to keep them from being targeted by demonstrators.Ìý
Some members of the Jewish community have called for these protections after a spate of protests against events connected to Israel being held at Toronto-area synagogues and churches, which followed the Oct. 7 Hamas attack and Israel’s bombardment of Gaza.
The largest of these protestsÌýlast year concerned real estate expos offering congregants advice on moving to Israel or into illegal settlements in the occupied West Bank.Ìý
Critics of the proposed bylaw, including police, city officials and constitutional lawyers, have argued that legislation like this is unnecessary, potentially dangerous for bylaw officers and would limit civil liberties.
Earlier this month, councillors Alejandra Bravo and James Pasternak held separate roundtable discussions with legal experts at city hall, wherein councillors and their staff were able to ask questions of them about the Charter implications.
Bravo brought inÌýexperts Anaïs Bussières McNicoll from the Canadian Civil Liberties Association and James Turk from the Centre for Free Expression at pc28¹ÙÍøMetropolitan University, who argued the bylaw could create a “society that dictates speech, where people are afraid to speak up.”
Turk said police already have mechanisms in the law to deal with the rights of worshippers being infringed. Discomfort with protesters outside isn’t a sufficient complaint, he added. “People have a right to express their views.”
Pasternak, who’s in support of the “bubble zones,” invited Mark Sandler, a criminal lawyer, who said the bylaw would be consistent with the Charter, as evidenced by B.C.‘s bubble law standing up to a challenge in that province’s highest court.
He said these bylaws are not meant to prevent protests per se, just to prevent people from becoming captive audiences to it.Ìý
“The reason we give rights of freedom of expression and assembly and so on is because others can walk away, they don’t have to listen to it,” Sandler told the Star on Wednesday. “The bubble legislation is designed with recognition that you do become a captive audience to them when you’re in your place of worship or you’re trying to run your school.”
Reactions to the bylaw proposal Thursday were mixed-to-negative. TheÌýCoalition for Charter Rights and Freedoms, an ad hoc group formed of civil liberties and pro-Palestinian organizations to oppose bubble zone legislation, said in a statement that passing it would “mark a historic erosion of civic space in Toronto.”
The Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs wrote in anÌýemail to its subscribers that there were some “significant achievements” found in the text of the bylaw. Namely that it “recognizes theÌýneed to protect all social infrastructure ...Ìýnot just for the Jewish community, but for all vulnerable groups.”Ìý
But aspects of it are “concerning,” saidÌýCIJA vice-president Michelle Stock, such as its tiny coverage area and the “high threshold of proof” needed to apply for it.
“CIJA is working around the clock with City Councillors to close the gaps in the bylaw,” Stock wrote.
Toronto’s head of bylaw administration and enforcement said in a previous interview with the Star that police are better suited to deal with these matters and that he doesn’t think his officers should be involved. His division would be responsible for ticketing demonstrators who pierce bubble zones.Ìý
“I’m a firm believer that we shouldn’t tell the police what to do or how they should do it,”Ìýsaid Carleton Grant, executive director of Municipal Licensing and Standards. “They are trained and they are the best to deal with large crowds and protests and they have for years.”
At a , pc28¹ÙÍøpolice Staff Supt. Frank Barredo said a bylaw would not change how police handle demonstrations.
In fact, police already enforce “de-facto” bubble zones where they see fit, he said. One such example is at the Highway 401 overpass where police banned protests for several weeks in 2024, leading to multiple arrests. The area had become a focal point of local tension over the war in Gaza.Ìý
