Toronto City Council Passes Bubble Legislation to Protect Vulnerable Spaces
- ALCCA Staff
- May 24
- 6 min read
Updated: May 27
This week, Toronto City Council passed bubble legislation to offer some protection to community members and their children who are entitled to access and use their places of worship, schools, and day care centres without fear, intimidation or harassment. The legislation does not prohibit protests or demonstrations. It merely requires that such activities, other than labour action, not take place in close proximity to three types of vulnerable spaces.
After extensive public consultation, and prolonged delays, City Council met to debate the draft legislation presented by city staff. Council adopted important amendments following the debate. Most significantly, Council voted to remove a requirement that owners of vulnerable social infrastructure affirm that their spaces had already been targeted within the last 90 days.
This and several other unworkable requirements would have undermined the entire rationale of the legislation – to serve as a preventative measure to reduce the likelihood of intimidation and harassment rather than respond to criminal conduct after it has already taken place. Other amendments modestly expanded the protected zone to 50 metres, rather than 20 metres, and extended the duration of protected zones to one year, rather than 180 days. Ultimately, the amended legislation passed 17-9 with the Mayor counted among those who voted in its favour.
ALCCA’s Chair was actively engaged in the process that led to passage of the legislation. He provided two sets of written submissions to the City in favour of the proposed legislation and a critical legal analysis of the unamended version of the legislation when it was publicized a few days before the vote. Councillor Pasternak invited Mark to address councillors and their staff in person on the constitutionality of the legislation and to respond to concerns about infringement on freedom of speech and assembly. He explained the legislation on radio and in print and contributed to a more informed discussion about the viability of various proposed amendments introduced during Council’s debate.
In partnership with CIJA, Mark explained the legislation to community members. ALCCA amplified the message, as did many of its members and subscribers. ALCCA also worked collaboratively with B'nai Brith Canada and grassroots organization Lions of Judah, which commendably created a website dedicated to bubble legislation, bubblezones.ca. The collaboration included our faith allies who participated in a press conference to support the legislation.
The collaboration among community organizations (Jewish and non-Jewish) respecting bubble legislation in Toronto and elsewhere was refreshing and timely, and reflected how capable we are when we work together and not in silos. Indeed, the founding impetus of ALCCA, now close to 60 members strong, is to facilitate just that kind of collaboration.
In the lead-up to City Council’s debate, we heard so much misinformation about bubble legislation and about the realities on the ground in Toronto.
Here are several illustrations:
Claim: Bubble legislation destroys or substantially erodes freedom of expression and assembly.
Fact: Bubble legislation merely regulates close proximity to vulnerable social infrastructure for certain activities.
Worshippers, children, and other community members are entitled to use and enjoy vulnerable social infrastructure without fear of intimidation. Opponents of the legislation were unable to explain why holding protests and demonstrations 51 metres away from such infrastructure or elsewhere undermines their freedom to protest and assemble. This is especially relevant when, all too often, protestors and demonstrators seek to make Canadian Jews collectively responsible for the actions of a foreign state.
Claim: Bubble legislation is unconstitutional.
Fact: The British Columbia Court of Appeal unanimously upheld bubble legislation in the abortion service context for many of the reasons advanced in favour of the Toronto bubble legislation.
The Supreme Court of Canada refused leave (permission) to appeal against that decision. In our Chair’s detailed legal analysis, he brought this authoritative decision to the attention of councillors in Toronto and other jurisdictions. It has been ignored or downplayed by bubble legislation’s opponents. In fairness, this doesn’t mean that every piece of legislation across the country will necessarily survive Charter scrutiny. But legislators should be fully informed of existing jurisprudence, especially when it rebuts unsubstantiated legal claims.
Claim: Police have adequate criminal laws to arrest those who intimidate, harass or block access to institutions.
Fact: Criminal measures, even if properly enforced, do not address the harm prevented by bubble legislation.
Those attending vulnerable spaces are entitled to their use, without reasonable fear that they will face intimidation and harassment in doing so. It is little or no comfort to the community to say that the police can arrest people once they have successfully intimidated and harassed community members, and exposed children and seniors to offensive speech. Moreover, in Toronto, police are underutilizing existing criminal law and municipal bylaws to address unlawful conduct. That is the reality for the Jewish community in this city.
Claim: There is no need for this legislation. Most protests or demonstrations are peaceful.
Fact: This claim fails to recognize the poisoned environment that now exists.
Peaceful protests or demonstrations must be respected. But all too often, protests and demonstrations we are experiencing in this city are the antithesis of peaceful. Police at times acknowledge they do not intervene because they are outnumbered. Protests are often accompanied by hate. They are also taking place within the context of unparalleled surges in antisemitic hate crimes, targeting Jewish schools, places of worship and community centres. Law enforcement has uncovered multiple plots to kill Jews and attack Jewish institutions. A mix of peaceful and violent protests is cold comfort to targeted community members.
Claim: Voices against Israel’s conduct in Gaza won’t be heard.
Fact: The legislation in no way prevents protestors from making their voices heard.
This claim entirely misses the point. It is disingenuous to suggest that these views will not be heard simply because protestors will be unable to force children or worshippers to pass through a gauntlet of protestors to go to school or synagogue. Often overlooked by those who opposed the bubble legislation are the rights and fundamental freedoms of those entitled to use their social spaces. These rights include the right not to be captive to the expressive rights of others.
The British Columbia Court of Appeal, in upholding bubble legislation’s constitutionality, said this:
“The right of freedom of expression does not include the right to a captive audience. An important justification for permitting people to speak freely is that those to whom the message is offensive may simply ‘avert their eyes’ or walk away. Where this is not possible, one of the fundamental assumptions supporting freedom of expression is brought into question.”
During City Council’s debate, Councillor Pasternak emphasized that the legislation "extends rights to those trying to enter places of worship, faith-based day care, vulnerable institutions. It doesn't take any right away. It doesn't take away the right to protest, the right to picket, or the right to free speech."
Councillor Bradford underscored the urgency of action: "Job number one of local government is to keep our residents safe. That's our job, that's what people expect, and that's what Torontonians deserve." He also cited a staggering 93 percent increase in hate crimes since October 7, with 56 percent of those incidents targeting the Jewish community.
Councillor Cheng reminds us all what’s at stake: "This is not a discussion about what is happening in Gaza. This is a discussion about regular folks who have spent decades in Canada, maybe a whole lifetime, who want to wear a Star of David and go to their place of worship, and send their children to school, whether they can feel safe doing it."
Councillor Rachel Chernos Lin added: “This bylaw is a step towards a safer city where all Torontonians can access critical social infrastructure. Kids can go to school, we can drop off our kids at day care, and people can practice religion at places of worship of all faiths. This bylaw protects all of us.”
Next steps
In the upcoming weeks, ALCCA will partner with other organizations to explain in detail what the bubble legislation means and how the community can obtain the protection it offers.
The legislation will be in effect as of July 2, 2025. Time will tell whether the police and the municipality will effectively utilize this additional tool to address the safety and security of the community. Ultimately, the province of Ontario should take the lead in introducing province-wide legislation.
But for now, we should applaud those members of City Council who recognized the seriousness of the crisis facing the community and responded.