Hate Crime & Legal Update: Events at Toronto’s JCC, Youth Hate Charges, and the Engler Harassment Conviction
- Rochelle Direnfeld
- Jan 29
- 7 min read
Week of January 26, 2026
Events outside Toronto's Prosserman JCC
On Monday, January 19, 2026, at approximately 7:30 p.m., the Toronto Police Service was present at a demonstration being held outside the Prosserman Jewish Community Centre (JCC) in the Bathurst and Sheppard area of Toronto. Protestors objected to Israeli comedian Guy Hochman’s appearance at the venue. The Prosserman JCC applied for and received “bubble zone” protection from the City of Toronto after municipal bubble zone legislation was enacted in July 2025. Protestors are not permitted within 50 metres of the property.
This protection was available under the legislation because the JCC has a childcare centre on site. It is in effect one hour before the childcare centre opens and one hour after it closes (7:00 pm) Monday to Thursday. Officers attempted to designate separate areas for protestors and counter-protestors to demonstrate, relegating the protestors to the east side of Bathurst, across the street from the JCC. One person, Marvin (Meir) Weinstein, 68, of Toronto, was arrested and charged with assault.
It is alleged that Mr. Weinstein approached an anti-Israel protestor and pushed him, causing him to fall to the ground. The complainant-demonstrator, Naveed Bahadur, a well-known protest leader, was, according to online video footage, on the west side of Bathurst (contrary to the police direction) when the alleged assault occurred. Mr. Weinstein denies the allegation, indicating on social media that he was defending Guy Hochman from being assaulted by Bahadur.
Weinstein is scheduled to appear in court at the Ontario Court of Justice, 10 Armoury Street, on Wednesday, March 4, 2026, at 2 p.m., in courtroom 202.
Newmarket Youth Charged with Hate-Motivated Offences
On Wednesday, January 21, 2026, investigators with the York Regional Police Hate Crime Unit executed a warrant at a home in Newmarket and arrested a young person, charging him with a number of hate-motivated offences. Officers also located a quantity of a controlled substance believed to be Psilocybin.
In November 2025, police were notified of multiple hate-motivated incidents involving indecent communications targeting the Jewish community in York Region and Toronto. More specifically, it is alleged that the young person made antisemitic comments over the phone to staff members at synagogues, community centres and Jewish schools in York Region and Toronto.
The young person is charged with:
Bias, Prejudice or Hate Motivated Mischief to Property x10
Indecent Communications x10
Possession of a Schedule III Substance
The investigation is ongoing. The young person’s name cannot be identified pursuant to a prohibition under the Youth Criminal Justice Act.
We have advocated for robust use of the bias, prejudice or hate-motivated mischief charge by law enforcement in appropriate cases. It represents an offence more easily proven than wilful promotion of hatred because it is not confined to hate motivation, the most extreme form of animosity, but extends to bias or prejudice-motivated mischief.
Conviction of Yves Engler in Montreal
On January 23, 2026, Yves Engler, a well-known anti-Israel activist, was convicted in a Montreal courtroom of the following:
Attempting to obstruct, defeat or pervert the course of justice by harassing Francesca Crivello;
Without lawful excuse and with intent to harass, sending repeated communications/causing repeated communications to be sent to Francesca Crivello, by means of telecommunication; and
Wilfully obstructing Francesca Crivello, a peace officer, in the execution of her duty.
All of the above offences occurred during the period of February 18-19, 2025, in Montreal.
Engler sought to run as a candidate for the leadership of the New Democratic Party, but he was disqualified by the federal party in December.
Engler has previously authored published commentary across multiple platforms minimizing or questioning the prevalence and framing of antisemitism in Canada, including an article titled Why “Anti-Semitism” Is the Most Abused Term in Canada. He also frequently refers to Zionists and their allies as “genocidal Jewish supremacists.”
The charges originated in 2024 as a result of a criminal complaint of criminal harassment made by journalist Dahlia Kurtz against Engler. Detective Crivello, of the Service de Police de la Ville de Montréal (SPVM) Hate Crime Unit, was assigned to investigate the complaint.¹
Having satisfied herself that she had reasonable grounds to arrest Engler, Detective Crivello contacted Engler to arrange for his surrender and arrest (a common practice for individuals not considered to be a flight risk). She advised him that he would be released from the station on conditions. Engler’s counsel then made arrangements for Engler to turn himself in the next day.
Early the next morning, on February 19, 2025, Detective Crivello discovered that her work email address had received more than 1,000 emails with the subject line, “Drop charges against author Yves Engler,” with more emails still incoming. Most of the emails contained the same text:
Dear Officer Crivello,
The arrest of author Yves Engler for social media posts opposing Israel’s genocide is an abuse of state power. The charges against the father of two young children should be immediately withdrawn. It’s an outrageous attack against freedom of expression that you would consider placing conditions on Engler blocking him from publicly discussing the case against him.
Advocates of apartheid and genocide have been seeking to mobilize police and court resources against critics of Israel’s crimes. It’s imperative that police not abuse their authority by assisting these efforts.
Sincerely.
That day, Detective Crivello received over 1,800 emails, although about 200 were diverted due to an email block police were able to install.
Forensic evidence proved that Engler had written an article on his own website advising his followers that Montreal police intended to charge him in relation to social media posts he had made about Kurtz. He then invited his followers to write to the police to request that the charges against him be dropped, using the words: “please take a minute to email the police to drop the charges against Yves.”
The words “a minute” appeared in red and were hyperlinked to a form on the website “actionnetwork.org” which could be completed by entering last name, first name, email address, city, and postal code in order to access the letter. The page’s source code sent the letters directly to Detective Crivello’s email address, reproducing the above text. None of this evidence was disputed by Engler.
Engler also reproduced the same text on all of his social media platforms, including YouTube, Instagram, Facebook, and X, among others.
Detective Crivello testified that she felt targeted, as her full name and email address were used – not a generic SPVM address. She also felt intimidated by this organized effort to cause her to end her investigation. She received so many emails that it became anxiety-inducing, and ultimately the investigation was transferred to another investigator.
The overwhelming influx of emails had a significant impact on Detective Crivello’s work. Even after the file was transferred, the persistent flow of messages rendered her computer virtually unusable. Each effort to compose or send an email was met with system notifications indicating that her inbox was full and required the deletion of content before proceeding, effectively blocking her access to essential work functions and preventing her from carrying out her duties efficiently.
The court found that in the particular circumstances, Engler intended, by means of the technique used, to obstruct the officer’s work. At the very least, he could foresee this eventuality with a high degree of certainty.
The court also found that Engler intended to disturb, annoy, or inconvenience Detective Crivello sufficiently for her to reverse her decision to lay charges against him. Further, the subject line of the email was disturbing, given that she was to proceed with the accused’s arrest that very day, and the content of the email was intimidating and threatening, should she continue with the investigation and arrest of Engler.
The defence argued that Engler had a “lawful excuse” in sending the emails because he contended that the original charge related to Kurtz was an “abuse of power” intended to silence him and the fact that the charge was ultimately withdrawn was a vindication of his position. In rejecting that defence, the court found that Engler essentially “took the law into his own hands”.
Even where an accused believes he is within his rights, he cannot make harassing communications to assert his position. No lawful excuse exists where the communications are made with the intention of harassing the person to whom they are sent. The fact that the charge relating to Kurtz was later withdrawn did not immunize the unlawful conduct. There are numerous reasons why charges are withdrawn by the prosecution that do not mean that there was a lack of reasonable grounds when the charges were laid.
This is an important decision with relevance to those situations where technology is used as a weapon to harass persons with contrary perspectives, a misuse experienced by many members of our community and allies. ALCCA’s police training identifies this section of the Criminal Code as an underutilized tool in combatting hatred. Unlike the conventional offence of criminal harassment, harassing communications does not require proof that the repeated communications caused the victim to reasonably fear for their safety or the safety of anyone known to them. It is sufficient to prove that the accused repeatedly communicates or causes repeated communications to be made to the victim, with the intent to harass.
The intention to harass will largely depend upon the facts and circumstances of each individual case. In this case, the court concluded that it was clear from the content and volume of the emails that were sent at Engler’s urging that he intended to harass Detective Crivello until she decided not to proceed with the charges against him.
Engler returns to court for sentencing on March 5, 2026. Engler has indicated that he intends to appeal the conviction.
--
Endnotes
The charges in relation to Kurtz were ultimately withdrawn by the prosecution.
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 a 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, Rochelle 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 focused a large part of her career on youth criminal justice, developing policy as well as training and lecturing crowns, the defence bar, the judiciary, and the police. Since 2018, Rochelle has been committed to battling hate-motivated offences and has sat on the Attorney General’s Hate Crime Working Group, providing legal advice to crown counsel and police on hate crimes. In the aftermath of October 7, Rochelle returned to work with the Hate Crime Working Group at Crown Law Office - Criminal until November 2024. Rochelle also serves as vice-chair of the Board of Directors of BOOST Child and Youth Advocacy Centre, a wrap-around agency serving children and youth who have been victims of abuse, as well as their families.