Hate Crime and Legal Update: Protest-Related Mischief Guilty Verdict, Hezbollah-Linked Money Laundering, and Repeat Bail Breaches by Alleged Hatemonger
- Rochelle Direnfeld
- Feb 12
- 6 min read
Week of February 9, 2026
Guilty Verdict: Freedom of assembly does not protect people who commit mischief
On February 5, 2026, Susan Jane Bibbings was found guilty by a Richmond, BC court of one count of mischief by wilfully obstructing, interrupting or interfering with the lawful use, enjoyment or operation of the property of the University Endowment Lands at the University of British Columbia. The charge relates to a protest in May 2024, when about 60 demonstrators, including Bibbings, obstructed an intersection at the entrance to UBC. Protesters sat in the intersection, placed pallets and bikes in the crosswalks and erected a tent in the middle of the intersection.
The protesters had a megaphone and led chants. The blockade was permitted for about three hours, after which police ordered the intersection to be cleared. The protesters complied with the police orders but then started marching west along University Boulevard. Bibbings was told three times by police to keep moving. When she did not comply after the third time, she was arrested. Video evidence demonstrated that buses were forced to stop along University Boulevard and traffic had to be diverted by police. In addition, many people were unable to attend work or school, and many others were delayed in attending several graduation ceremonies that were taking place that day.
Bibbings relied on section 430(7) of the Criminal Code, which provides that, “No person commits mischief within the meaning of this section by reason only that he attends at or near or approaches a dwelling-house or place for the purpose only of obtaining or communicating information.” The court rejected the defence, finding instead that Bibbings was “seeking attention” and her actions were not accidental but “intentional and performative.”
The court also found that freedom of assembly does not protect people who commit mischief such as blocking an intersection, especially given the blocked intersection was one of three main entrances to the campus and is a “key intersection” for transit, cyclists and pedestrians and an access point to the university campus, local businesses and UBC Hospital. Section 2(c) of the Charter (freedom of peaceful assembly) does not trump other Charter rights so as to violate the rule of law or lead to unreasonable and illogical outcomes.
While freedom of peaceful assembly includes the right to protest, society expects that this should happen without breaking the law and while allowing others to move about freely. Finally, the court stated, “The rights of freedom of expression and peaceful assembly did not mean that those values justified a complete disregard for the basic consideration of other people or the choice to go against the law and engage in civil disobedience,” and “No one was above the law and had the authority to behave unlawfully, engage or interfere with the rights of others, damage property or restrict essential services.”
Bibbings will be sentenced at a later date.
ALCCA’s training of law enforcement officers across the country emphasizes the effective use of mischief (interference with the lawful use, enjoyment and operation of property) to address unlawful, disruptive protest activity.
This important decision provides critical direction on the point at which peaceful assembly turns into criminal conduct and clearly declares that the Charter will not protect conduct that descends into the unlawful. While peaceful protests are lawful, the moment the protest employs unlawful conduct is the moment that it ceases to be Charter-protected.
Permanent residence denied to Hezbollah money launderer
On January 21, 2026, the Federal Court of Canada upheld the decision of an immigration officer refusing the application for permanent residence of Fahed Sowane and his dependent son. The officer determined that Sowane was “a danger to the security of Canada” because he was involved in laundering money to the terrorist organization, Hezbollah through the acquisition, shipment, and sale of automobiles and parts to Lebanon and the Port of Beirut.
Fahed Sowane was a citizen of Belgium and Lebanon and entered Canada in 2016 on a work permit. Fahed worked for many years in the used vehicle sales industry, having worked in his twenties at his father’s dealership in Lebanon. Since then, he operated used vehicle businesses in Lebanon, Belgium, and Canada. When he applied for permanent residency in 2019, he was employed as a wholesale trade manager at an Ontario used vehicle business.
There was evidence that he used the Port of Beirut, where he paid no customs fees or taxes, to import and export vehicles and their parts as part of a money laundering scheme to support Hezbollah.
The court confirmed that Hezbollah (designated as a terrorist entity by the Canadian government) has an “extensive security apparatus, political organization, and social services network” which contributes to its vast influence in the region and particularly in the Port of Beirut and Lebanon’s border with Syria.
Further, the court confirmed Hezbollah’s influence extends to Lebanon’s municipalities and state institutions. Its control allows it to import goods, including drugs, weapons, and explosives through Beirut without having to pay customs and without oversight.
Given the available evidence, the court was more than satisfied that there were reasonable grounds for the Officer to believe that Sowane and his businesses acted as conduits for money laundering to aid Hezbollah. The decision to deny Sowane permanent residence status was upheld.
This decision reinforces the importance of vigilance where terrorism, financial networks, and immigration processes intersect. Indeed, in a September 2025 editorial, “Domestic Terrorism in Canada: Who’s Listening,” ALCCA’s Chair specifically identified, as a concern, money laundering in Canada for Hezbollah’s benefit and described Hezbollah’s trade in new and used cars to fund its activities.
Matthan Runighan charged again
Last month, we reported on the arrest of Matthan Runighan, 25 of PEI, on charges of wilful promotion of hatred and wilful promotion of antisemitism in relation to numerous disturbing social media posts. Runighan is the first person to face hate propaganda charges in the province of PEI.
As part of the original investigation into his hateful posts online (but before he faced hate propaganda offences), Runighan was charged in August 2025 with unlawful possession of a firearm after a public safety warrant was executed at his residence and police seized a 12-gauge shotgun and ammunition. He was further charged with possession of a weapon dangerous to the public peace, improper storage of a firearm, possession of a firearm without a licence and possession of a non-restricted firearm without a licence.
He was released on bail but breached conditions three times in August and September, resulting in a further arrest in September. He was released again by the court after a bail hearing. On October 10, 2025, Runighan was arrested again for breaching his conditions by posting hate propaganda online. Notwithstanding his continuous breaches of bail conditions, Runighan continued to be released on bail into the community.
On December 23, he was formally charged with wilful promotion of hatred and wilful promotion of antisemitism (these charges required the consent of the Attorney General). He appeared in PEI Supreme Court on January 28, 2026, and was subsequently released on bail on February 2, 2026. His release order included a condition prohibiting him from posting on social media.
Three days later, on February 5, 2026, PEI RCMP received information that Runighan had been posting on social media, contrary to his release order issued on February 2, 2026. Officers located him in Donaldston, just east of Charlottetown, where he was arrested again and held in custody for a bail hearing. He has been remanded in custody to February 23, 2026.
The repeated release of Runighan from custody despite allegations of multiple breaches of his terms of release highlights a systemic issue of national importance.
Not only is hate-motivation an aggravating factor on sentencing requiring the court to consider a strong denunciatory and deterrent sentence but hate-motivated offenders are statistically far more likely to reoffend because they are compelled by their ideological impulses, a relevant consideration at a bail hearing. Bail can also be denied in order to maintain confidence in the administration of justice.
Confidence in the administration of justice may be undermined when alleged hatemongers are repeatedly released from custody pending their trials.
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.