Hate Crime and Legal Update: Al-Quds Injunction Denied, Charges Laid, and Hitler Speech Case in Toronto
- Rochelle Direnfeld
- 17 hours ago
- 9 min read
Updated: 31 minutes ago
Week of March 16, 2026
Decision of Justice Robert Centa – Al-Quds Day Injunction Application
On the morning of March 14, 2026, the Attorney General of Ontario (AG) sought injunctive relief against persons unknown, participants in the Al-Quds Committee, the Palestinian Youth Movement, Lebanese4palestine, and Samidoun. The AG sought an order of the court “enjoining all persons with knowledge of the order from participating in an “Al Quds Day protest in the City of Toronto on March 14, 2026, or on any other day” and an order “authorizing the Toronto Police Service to arrest and remove anyone contravening the order.”
Alternatively, the AG sought an order “enjoining anyone participating in the rally from violating the Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, committing property crimes, interfering with access to buildings (including hospitals), causing a nuisance, or engaging in hate speech, and authorizing the Toronto Police Service to arrest anyone breaching this order”, along with other relief.
The injunction application was delivered to the court at 10:52 am on Saturday, March 14, 2026, (the morning of the Al-Quds Rally). The application was heard by Mr. Justice Robert Centa of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice at approximately 12:00 PM. At approximately 2:05 PM the court dismissed the application with the following bottom-line decision:
The application for an interim interlocutory injunction is dismissed. I am not satisfied that the Attorney General of Ontario has met the test for a quia timet injunction to prevent all persons from engaging in the Al Quds Day protest. In the record before me, there is insufficient evidence to satisfy me that:
a. The police see this injunction as necessary to preserve the peace
b. This protest in prior years has given rise to significant criminality or an inability of the police to maintain the peace
c. An anticipatory and blanket injunction interfering with the Charter rights of the participants is reasonable or proportionate in the circumstances of the case.
I am also not persuaded that the alternative relief sought by the Attorney General is appropriate. The court expects the participants not to engage in any criminal or tortious activity during the protest. The court expects the police to enforce the law. No order of this court is necessary to achieve either of these ends.
The right to assemble and speak freely must be maintained in times of global conflict. Perhaps at no other time is the protection of our civil liberties more important. At the same time, the security of all members of the public depends on the police enforcing the laws that are on the books. I thank all counsel for their hard work and flexibility.
From the outset of the court's subsequent written reasons, it expressed its concern regarding the timing of the application and stated unequivocally that the AG should not have come to court mere hours before the demonstration was to begin.
The court went on to review the test for an injunction, which is slightly modified when the AG seeks the order in the public interest. Where the AG proves that he has a strong case that the respondents’ conduct will violate the law or constitutes a public nuisance, an injunction will be ordered. The AG need not establish that the conduct will cause irreparable harm because violations of the law irreparably harm the public interest. The legal test was not the problem. The problem was one of proof.
The AG submitted that “Given the recent pattern of violence and the nature of the Rally, there exists a strong case that the Rally will constitute mischief, a public or common nuisance, unlawful assembly, intimidation, rioting, and/or the incitement or wilful promotion of hatred of antisemitism or as against another identifiable group, within the meaning of sections 63, 54, 175, 319, 423, and 430 of the Criminal Code.”
The court disagreed, finding:
…there is no evidence in the record that there were criminal charges arising out of last year’s Al Quds rally in Toronto, or at the rallies in any of the prior 30 years. There is no evidence that participants at last year’s rally incited hatred or engaged in hate speech. There is no evidence before me of any criminality arising out of this rally in the past, much less evidence that could satisfy me that there is a “strong case” that there will be criminal activity this year.
I am also not satisfied that there is a strong likelihood that the rally will constitute a public nuisance. A nuisance is public if it “materially affects the reasonable comfort and convenience” of members of the public. There is no evidence before me that any prior Al Quds day rally in Toronto constituted a public nuisance. I would have expected to see such evidence in support of an injunction like this.
While the court accepted that protest activity that attracts or encourages violence may constitute a nuisance, there was no evidence in the record before the court that this demonstration would attract or encourage violence. There was simply no evidence to substantiate the AG’s submission that there was a material risk that conduct at the demonstration may “endanger the lives, safety and health of the public and cause injury.”
Further, the court found that there was no evidence that Samidoun (a designated terrorist entity in Canada and the US) or Deana Sherif were a part of the Al-Quds organizing committee, holding, “Just because unsavoury persons promote a rally on social media does not mean that they are organizing that event.”
As for the alternative relief sought (reproduced above), the court found there was no need to make such an order. No one is permitted to violate the law, and the police do not require a court order to arrest and charge persons who are breaking the law. Finally, the court held that “While there is no basis for directing the police to enforce an order arising out of a civil proceeding, “the court expects the police to enforce the law and preserve the peace.”
Commentary
This result was entirely predictable and the application was doomed to fail from the beginning. After days of speculation as to whether the City of Toronto would bring the injunction application, Premier Doug Ford publicly announced on the afternoon of March 13, 2026, that he would be instructing (a problem in and of itself, given the AG’s independence) the AG to pursue an injunction to stop the Al-Quds rally.
Injunctions (like most court applications seeking relief) require evidence, usually presented to the court through affidavits (sworn statements). Frequently, those affidavits are subject to cross-examination to test the reliability of the evidence presented. Here, both sides filed affidavit evidence, but because of the truncated timeline, there was no opportunity for cross-examination to test the evidence. In my view, this was particularly problematic in relation to the affidavits tendered by the respondents. More importantly, there was not adequate time for the AG’s lawyers to gather and marshal the necessary evidence to convince the court that an injunction was required in the circumstances. This was especially crucial when the relief sought engaged the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, specifically, freedom of expression and freedom of lawful assembly.
In order to support the injunction application, the AG appeared to rely on two things: the horrific acts of antisemitic violence that have occurred around the world, including the most recent events in Toronto (three synagogue shootings within five days and the US Consulate shooting); and the messaging and purpose of the Al-Quds rallies. The difficulty was that the AG relied upon the recent antisemitic violence taking place without showing a connection between that violence and this upcoming rally. The AG’s reliance on the objective of the rally was met with the decision of the Court of Appeal in Hillier v. Ontario, 2025 ONCA 259, 175 O.R. (3d) 241, which stated: “[B]lanket bans that exclude or restrict an assembly because of its message or purpose are especially problematic. They are “an ‘excessive restriction’ and ‘presumptively disproportionate’ for that reason. “In particular, assemblies with a political message should receive a ‘heightened level of accommodation and protection’.”
Although an injunction may be presumptively unavailable where freedom of speech or lawful assembly are at stake, the application would have been more credible if the evidence of current antisemitic violence had been accompanied by evidence that unlawful conduct including hate speech and endorsement of terror against Jews and Israelis had figured prominently in past Al-Quds rallies in Toronto and elsewhere. Evidence from the police that they reasonably believe that the rally would endanger lives and safety or that they did not have the resources available to ensure public safety would have also lent credibility to the application. But such evidence was not presented. On the contrary, the evidence before the court was that the organizers had been working with the Toronto Police Service in advance of the rally to ensure that it proceeded safely.
What I found particularly troubling was that there was abundant evidence that was not presented to the court that past Al-Quds rallies have indeed prominently featured hate speech, including the promotion of terrorists and terrorist activities. However, the failure of the police to lay charges in those cases worked against the success of the injunction here.
Toronto Al-Quds Day Arrests and Charges – March 16, 2026
The Toronto Police Service have advised that two arrests have been made thus far arising out of the Al-Quds Day rally held in Toronto on March 14, 2026. The incidents are separate and unrelated to each other.
1. Farshid McVandifar, 56, of Toronto, was arrested and charged with:
Mischief – Damage Property Under $5000
Assault
It is alleged that McVandifar was participating as a counter-demonstrator at the Al-Quds demonstration. He engaged with another person who was participating in the demonstration and was carrying a stick with the flag of the Islamic Republic of Iran attached to it. McVandifar began to swing his arms and fists at the demonstrator, causing the stick to break and pieces of it to strike the demonstrator.
He was released and is scheduled to appear at the Ontario Court of Justice, 10 Armoury Street, on Wednesday, July 22, 2026, at 11 a.m., in room 203.
2. Mostafa Shabanian Bashmandoost, 39, of Toronto, was arrested and charged with:
Assault
Criminal Harassment
Theft Under $5000
Possession of Property Obtained by Crime Under $5000
Public Incitement of Hatred
It is alleged that Bashmandoost was also participating as a counter-demonstrator at the Al-Quds demonstration. He followed another person, a participant in the Al-Quds demonstration, who was wearing the flag of the Islamic Republic of Iran on their back. Bashmandoost spat on the demonstrator and ripped the flag off their back. He was later located among the counter-demonstrators. He was observed to be lighting a flag of the Islamic Republic of Iran on fire and wearing Islamic Republic of Iran flags on the soles of his shoes.
He was held in custody for a bail hearing and was released the next morning, Sunday March 15. He is scheduled to appear at the Ontario Court of Justice, 10 Armoury Street, on April 24, 2026, at 11 a.m., in room 203.
The last charge, public incitement of hatred of an identifiable group likely to cause a breach of the peace, is the only hate propaganda offence that may be laid directly by the police without the requirement of the Attorney General’s consent. ALCCA Chair, Mark Sandler’s editorial addresses the incongruity of an allegation of inciting hatred against a terror regime.
While only two people have been charged with offences arising out of Al-Quds Day so far, it is important to note that the police can lay charges at any time thereafter. If you are aware of criminal conduct that occurred at the demonstration, it is imperative that it be reported to the police. If you are in possession of photographs or video of people committing criminal offences, it is imperative that it be provided to the police. We have already been made aware of several acts of criminal conduct at the Rally.
The Canadian Criminal Law Working Group is here to assist you in making a criminal complaint and advocating for charges to be laid where the conduct meets the criminal threshold. If you would like to discuss further or have any questions, please contact us at info@cclwg.ca.
Hate Crime by Playing Hitler’s Speech
Rostam Rashidkhani, 27, of Toronto, was arrested and charged with:
two counts of Criminal Harassment
two counts of Mischief – Interfere with the Lawful Enjoyment of Property
one count of Causing a Disturbance
It is alleged that between February 28, 2026, and March 6, 2026, Rashidkhani engaged in harassing conduct targeting the complainant by:
attending the complainant’s residence on two separate occasions, banging on the door while making racist and antisemitic remarks; and
attending the complainant’s residence on a third occasion where he stood outside and played a speech given by Adolf Hitler on his cellular telephone.
He was released by police and is scheduled to appear in court at the Ontario Court of Justice, 10 Armoury Street, on Monday, June 1, 2026, at 2:00 p.m., in room 202.
We will continue to monitor these matters closely and provide updates as further developments arise.
About the Author
Rochelle Direnfeld is ALCCA’s Senior Criminal Counsel. She was called to the Ontario bar in 1990 and has served in the Ontario Public Service for over 32 years as an assistant crown attorney, deputy crown attorney, crown counsel, and finally as Deputy Director for Toronto Crown Attorneys in the Criminal Law Division of the Ministry of the Attorney General. Rochelle retired from public service at the end of 2023. During her career, she prosecuted a wide variety of Criminal Code cases in the Ontario Court of Justice, Superior Court of Justice, and the Ontario Court of Appeal.
Rochelle is also the Chair of the Canadian Criminal Law Working Group, a national initiative bringing together leading criminal lawyers to strengthen the legal response to antisemitic hate crimes and support victims across Canada.
She has also been selected to join the Toronto Police Service Board’s Jewish Community Advisory Table, an initiative aimed at strengthening dialogue and collaboration between the Jewish community and the Toronto Police Service on issues of community safety and policing.