Toronto is weighing a controversial bylaw that would create “buffer zones” around places of worship, potentially restricting public protests within 100 meters of religious facilities. The proposed regulation, scheduled for a council vote today, has sparked intense debate about the balance between religious freedom and free expression rights.
“What we’re seeing is a direct response to escalating tensions at several houses of worship across the city,” said Councillor James Pasternak, who initially proposed the measure. “People should be able to practice their faith without feeling intimidated.”
The bylaw emerged following incidents at synagogues and mosques where demonstrators, particularly during the Israel-Hamas conflict, gathered with signs, megaphones, and in some cases, blocked entrances. Religious leaders report congregants feeling unsafe entering their own places of worship.
I reviewed the 37-page draft bylaw and consulted with constitutional experts. The document outlines penalties of up to $5,000 for first-time offenders and $10,000 for repeat violations. Enforcement would fall to bylaw officers and Toronto police.
Civil liberties groups have raised serious concerns. “This approach is potentially overbroad and risks criminalizing legitimate political expression,” argued Cara Zwibel from the Canadian Civil Liberties Association. “The Charter protects peaceful assembly, even when that expression makes others uncomfortable.”
The legal foundation for such restrictions remains questionable. In 2022, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled on similar “bubble zone” legislation around abortion clinics in British Columbia, finding that while narrowly tailored buffer zones can be constitutional, they must demonstrate clear evidence of harassment and direct interference.
Rabbi David Mivasair, who opposes the bylaw despite leading a congregation, told me, “We need to distinguish between peaceful protest and actual harassment. Democracy requires uncomfortable conversations.”
Toronto wouldn’t be the first Canadian city to implement such measures. Calgary passed a similar bylaw in March, though its legal challenge is ongoing. The City of Ottawa also considered but ultimately rejected comparable restrictions after legal advisors warned of constitutional vulnerabilities.
Mayor Olivia Chow has expressed cautious support, noting that “we must protect both religious freedom and free speech rights.” Her office confirmed she’s seeking amendments to narrow the scope to specifically target harassment rather than all forms of protest.
During public consultations last month, I observed more than 70 speakers divided almost evenly on the issue. Faith leaders predominantly supported the measure, while civil liberties advocates and some legal experts expressed reservations.
“The way this bylaw is currently written, someone silently holding a sign 90 meters from a church could face hefty fines,” explained Abby Deshman, director of the criminal justice program at the Canadian Civil Liberties Association. “That’s not proportionate to the stated goal of preventing harassment.”
Toronto Metropolitan University law professor Jamie Cameron offered historical context: “Courts have consistently held that public sidewalks are privileged spaces for expression. Any restriction must be minimally impairing and evidence-based.”
Supporters point to precedents like the Safe Access to Abortion Services Act, which creates buffer zones around clinics. However, critics note important distinctions—abortion clinics serve vulnerable individuals seeking healthcare, while places of worship often host community events and sometimes political discussions.
“We’re not seeking to silence political discourse,” emphasized Imam Hassan Amin. “We simply want people to pray without feeling threatened. Demonstrations can happen elsewhere.”
If passed, the bylaw would take effect immediately but faces potential legal challenges. The Canadian Constitution Foundation has already indicated they’re prepared to contest the measure in court.
City legal staff have recommended several amendments to strengthen the bylaw against potential Charter challenges, including narrowing the scope to target only disruptive conduct rather than all demonstrations, and reducing the buffer zone to 50 meters.
As council deliberates today, they face a fundamental question: how to balance protecting religious communities from harassment while preserving the democratic right to peaceful protest in public spaces. Whatever they decide will likely establish a precedent for other Canadian municipalities facing similar tensions.
