Why Toronto Needs Bubble Legislation to Protect Vulnerable Communities
- ALCCA Staff
- Apr 8
- 7 min read
In a detailed submission to Toronto’s Mayor and City Councillors, ALCCA Chair Mark Sandler makes the case for adopting municipal “bubble” legislation to safeguard Jewish and other vulnerable communities from targeted hate.
Read the submissions below (or access a pdf copy here):
April 8, 2025
Dear Mayor and Councillors,
I am writing to support the adoption of municipal “bubble” legislation by the City of Toronto.
By way of brief background, I am the Chair of the Alliance of Canadians Combatting Antisemitism (ALCCA), a coalition of 58 community organizations, Jewish and non-Jewish dedicated to fighting antisemitism and other forms of hatred through legal advocacy, education and respectful dialogue. I have been a criminal lawyer for 45 years, serving as both a defence counsel and prosecutor, lectured extensively on legal remedies to combat hate, and trained police, prosecutors and government agencies on the availability of criminal and municipal measures to combat hate. I have promoted respectful Muslim-Jewish, Sikh-Jewish and Black-Jewish dialogues. I have appeared before Parliamentary committees and in the Supreme Court of Canada on multiple occasions on issues relating to antisemitism, hate activities and the constitutionality of hate crime legislation. I am a former member of the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal. Recently, I presented to the National Forum on Antisemitism in Ottawa on legal measures to combat hate.
You are undoubtedly aware of the pervasive antisemitism now being experienced by the Canadian Jewish community at levels unprecedented since WWII. One report reflects a 670% increase in antisemitism in Canada since October 7, 2023. Antisemitic hate crimes have spiralled out of control representing by far the largest percentage of religion-based hate crimes. Hate crimes include shootings, firebombings and vandalism of places of worship, Jewish day schools, and community centres. We have also seen an increase in hate crimes directed against other identifiable groups. Sadly, hate activities have become normalized in Canada. You are undoubtedly aware of the dramatic increase in hate crimes in Toronto as documented by the Toronto Police Service.
Contemporary antisemitism extends well beyond ancient tropes or stereotypes about Jews. Now, Canadian Jews are targeted merely because they support the existence of the State of Israel. To be clear, the IHRA (International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance) definition of antisemitism, adopted by 43 countries including Canada, the Province of Ontario and many others, clearly states that criticism of Israel (whether its government, policies, or practices) in the same way other countries are criticized does not amount to antisemitism. However, the demonization of Zionism and all Zionists (including 91% of Canadian Jews) without distinction represents the most insidious current form of antisemitism. At the National Forum on Antisemitism, the Prime Minister Trudeau said he is Zionist and condemned its use as a pejorative term.
Protests, demonstrations and occupations in Canada are not confined to pro-Palestinian chants or slogans. They regularly characterize all Zionists as racist, genocidal and evil, without distinction, celebrate terrorists, including those designated as such by the federal government, urge the use of “any means necessary” to promote a global intifada and of particular relevance here, deliberately target Jewish neighborhoods, places of worship, and community centres to intimidate and harass the Jewish community. What I am describing is not protected free speech but hate speech. The Supreme Court of Canada has reflected that such speech not only marginalizes the targeted community members, making it more difficult for them to fully participate in our democracy, but may attract like-minded adherents to the cause.
Bubble legislation is not designed to punish hate crime offenders. The criminal law is to serve that purpose. Bubble legislation is designed as a preventative measure to keep vulnerable community members safe and enable them to carry on their lives, with full access to their social infrastructure without fear for their safety and security. “Access” in this context does not only mean unimpeded physical access to places of worship and other community spaces of importance, but also the ability to lawfully use and enjoy those spaces without fear.
Municipal and provincial governments have the duty to take appropriate measures to protect their vulnerable community members from intimidation, harassment and fear. Ontario’s Municipal Act, 2001, SO 2001, c.25 empowers municipalities to pass bylaws respecting the health, safety and well-being of its residents. It also empowers municipalities to prohibit and regulate respecting public nuisances, including matters that, in the opinion of council, are or could become or cause public nuisances (emphasis added). The prime reason why protestors target Jewish neighborhoods, places of worship, schools and community centres is to intimidate. I respectfully remind you that one illustration of antisemitism is attributing collective responsibility to the Canadian Jewish community for the actions of a foreign state.
It is now well recognized that bubble legislation survives constitutional (Charter) scrutiny when carefully crafted so as to not unnecessarily limit freedom of speech and assembly. Its constitutionality has been upheld when enacted to address widespread efforts to intimidate those associated with providing abortion services and to address widespread efforts to intimidate those involved in the administration of Covid 19 safety measures, including vaccinations. Widespread and ongoing efforts to intimidate Jewish and other religious communities, and the exponential growth of hate activities in Canada compel the same type of legislative response. Indeed, as already suggested, this is doubly so because, in the case of Jews, they are being held collectively responsible by protestors for the actions of others.
I would be pleased to address you on the existing jurisprudence. Suffice it to say in this brief submission, bubble legislation of various forms exists at the provincial and municipal levels across the country. There are at least eight provinces in which bubble legislation exists. Even civil liberties associations, in written submissions I have reviewed, have at times conceded (and appropriately so) that some limitations near hospitals and places of worship may be acceptable, although legislators “must think of solutions that minimally impair freedom of speech.” I agree that such legislation must not be so broad as to unreasonably impair freedom of speech or assembly. Governments across Canada have been successful in crafting such legislation.
I ask rhetorically, how is freedom of speech and assembly significantly impaired by prohibiting protestors from close proximity to Jewish (or Muslim or other) places of worship, schools, daycare centres, seniors’ residential facilities and community centres? No one suggests that such protests be prohibited altogether (unless otherwise in violation of the law) – just that they take place so as not to intimidate vulnerable communities which, it is important to add, include children, and the elderly who have experienced or witnessed often deadly or violent racism in their lives.
There is no province-wide legislation that addresses the safety and security of our religious communities at present, so it is necessary to legislate at the municipal level. I also observe that the use of municipal bylaw powers represents minimal impairment of rights, when compared to the use of the criminal law. Of course, the two are not mutually exclusive in appropriate circumstances.
I have reviewed various examples of bubble legislation across the country. In my view, the City of Vaughan’s bubble legislation provides helpful guidance although it could be improved in several respects.
Vaughan’s bylaw defines a “nuisance demonstration” as involving “one or more people publicly protesting or expressing views on an issue in any manner – whether it is intended or not – that is likely, on an objective standard, to cause a reasonable person to be intimidated, meaning that they are either concerned for their safety or security or unable to access vulnerable social infrastructure. For greater certainty, intimidation can be caused by, but not only by, actions or expressions that incite hatred, violence, intolerance or discrimination.”
As noted earlier, the Municipal Act (s. 128(1)) enables municipal governments to prohibit and regulate public nuisances, including matters that are, could become, or cause public nuisances. Excluding from such legislation lawful labour strikes (which necessarily target places of employment), it is the close proximity of protests to vulnerable community institutions, such as places of worship, day schools and community centres that is likely to cause intimidation. There should be no need for a prior showing of actions or expressions that intimidate before the legislation can be invoked. The objective is to prevent exposure to incitements to hatred, violence, intolerance, discrimination or similar acts or expressions of intimidation, not address such incitements after they have already taken place. Limits on protests within close proximity to vulnerable institutions minimally impair protected freedoms by preventing, not responding to, intimidation.
Accordingly, in my view, Toronto’s municipal bylaw should draw upon analogous language contained in various provincial statutes regulating, for example, protests directed against locations providing abortion services. Under the Toronto bylaw, a "nuisance demonstration" should be defined to include any act of disapproval or objection, by any means, including, without limitation, graphic, verbal or written means, with respect to issues perceived to relate to vulnerable social infrastructure or those who primarily use such infrastructure. The definition of vulnerable social infrastructure should be informed, in part, by the categories of property set out in s. 430(4.101) of the Criminal Code. These categories were created to address criminal mischief relating to places of worship and related community centres, schools, daycare centres and seniors’ residential facilities.
I am also familiar with CIJA’s submissions that contribute, in an important way, to the City’s work. Although CIJA proposes a different definition of a “nuisance demonstration,” we are perfectly aligned on the need for this legislation, and its constitutionality. It is also important to emphasize that the Vaughan municipal bylaw appropriately empowers the Deputy City Manager, Community Services, or designate, to order the closure of any highway, including roadway, boulevard, sidewalk, trail or pathway, the closure of any public place, including facility, park, or parking lot, and/or redirect vehicular or pedestrian traffic in any way, including the placing of barricades, where necessary to ensure the health, safety, and well-being of any person.” This preventative measure has been utilized effectively by Vaughan to address anticipated issues affecting community safety.
In conclusion, the benefits of bubble legislation, insofar as it is applied to address the vulnerability of the Jewish community (though it has application to other vulnerable religious communities) include:
Protecting the safety and security of Jewish community members
Protecting their right to worship as they please without intimidation
Protecting their right to unimpeded access to their social infrastructure
Protecting Jewish community members from emotional distress when in the presence of protestors in unnecessarily close proximity
Reducing the likelihood of destruction and vandalism directed to Jewish institutions
Preventing the interference with the lawful use and enjoyment of property by members of the Jewish community, also characterized as interference with full access to their social infrastructure
Reducing the likelihood of confrontational activities leading to violence or public disturbances
Minimally impacting the protestors' freedom of speech or assembly, as they are free to protest outside of the bubble zone
I would be pleased to answer any questions you might have or assist in any way, including a detailed legal review of draft legislation. Thank you for your consideration of these submissions.
Yours truly,
Mark Sandler, LL.B., LL.D. (honoris causa)