top of page
Writer's pictureNeil G. Oberman, LL.M.​​​​

The Concordia Litigation: Legal Action Against Campus Disruptions

Concordia University

On October 2, 2024, Quebec Superior Court Justice Daniel Urbas issued a temporary injunction preventing anticipated intimidating, threatening, and harassing activities which interrupt and disrupt access to academic services and activities offered by Concordia university.


The decision was in response to an application filed by Concordia students to address ongoing disruptions caused by anti-democratic, pro-Hamas groups that had infiltrated the university, aiming to obstruct students' access to classes, workshops, and campus facilities. The tensions escalated during the planned "Week of Rage," held from October 7 to October 11, 2023.


The Injunction: Defending Concordia Students


These disruptive activities began as early as October 2023, creating a hostile and unsafe environment for Concordia students. Using intimidation tactics and aggressive behavior, these groups effectively discouraged students from engaging in academic life. Faced with the growing threat, representatives from young students at Concordia, alongside two student associations, decided to pursue legal action. The aim was to ensure the campus remained free from harassment, allowing students to participate in classes without fear.


The plaintiffs sought an anticipatory prohibitive injunction, known as quia temet, a legal remedy that permits preventive action to stop anticipated harm. Their application meticulously detailed incidents leading up to the Week of Rage, emphasizing the detrimental impact these actions would have on Concordia's academic environment. Their goal was to secure the right to access education without interference from external threats.


Court Proceedings and Legal Success


Alongside my colleague, Michael Hollander, we appeared before the court to present the case. All defendants were notified of the proceedings through modern methods, including use of social media, thanks to a special mode of service approved by the court. Despite being given the opportunity to participate, none of the defendants attended.


In court, we presented video evidence of the defendants' menacing conduct, demonstrating the clear threat posed to students' safety. As well, we relied on precedents established in prior cases, such as judgements secured in CIJA-related applications. As a result, the judge was satisfied that sufficient grounds for the application existed for a provisional interlocutory injunction, granting temporary protection for students. The impact of the ruling was immediate and significant.


Protective Orders and New Precedents


Beyond the provisional injunction, the court issued protective orders for two individual at-risk plaintiffs, requiring the defendants to maintain a distance of more than 300 meters from these individuals outside of campus boundaries. This protective measure set an important legal precedent and underscored the severity of the situation, ensuring vulnerable students were shielded from further harassment.


Concordia University’s Lack of Response


During the proceedings, Concordia University took a non-committal stance which, in my opinion, highlighted the university’s lack of commitment to meaningfully meet its obligations to protect students. Concordia’s inadequate engagement with the legal process may represent a troubling indicator that the university will be unlikely to take any proactive measures to safeguard its campus for future such disruptions.


Broader Legal Impact: Citing the McGill Case


McGill University, facing similar anticipated disruptive behaviour on its own campus, moved for similar relief before the courts. I am pleased to report that McGill’s application was also successful*, and that the presiding judge's reasons placed significant reliance on the Concordia decision in so concluding. These are important precedents when anticipating, based on the expressed intentions of agitators, activities intended to deliberately disrupt higher education and intimidate campus members.


This isn’t about suppressing protected speech. It is about the safety of the student body, and its ability to be educated in a safe, intimidation-free, and inclusive environment. Sometimes we forget to acknowledge the positive steps taken to address hatred on campus, including the role played by McGill to lead this issue.


The Students


The two students exhibited remarkable determination and resolve, committed to safeguarding their fellow classmates' rights and ensuring that the aggressive pro-Hamas protesters do not impede their pursuit of an education free from hate, aggression, and violence. Their steadfast dedication to their peers and the core principles of democracy is outstanding. No students should ever be compelled by circumstances to seek legal representation merely to attend university in a safe and inclusive environment.


For this courageous stance, these students merit our highest commendation, support, and encouragement as they continue their diligent efforts alongside our dedicated legal team. We are profoundly appreciative of Start up Nation Concordia, and the unwavering commitment of Anastasia and Michael in the ongoing fight for justice and democracy for all students impacted by this concerning situation. Their bravery serves as an inspiration for others.

 

*The injunction was not renewed on October 21, 2024.

 

About the Author

Neil G. Oberman is a shareholder in Spiegel Sohmer's civil and commercial litigation group. His practice is centered on commercial and civil disputes. With more than 20 years' experience, Neil has developed a particular expertise in construction law. He is recognized for his talent as a litigation lawyer and regularly represents his diverse clientele before the Court of Quebec, the Superior Court, and the Quebec Court of Appeal. 

 

Additional Resources






 

bottom of page