Criminal Law Webinar | February 2026

Profile picture for 60847
CIJA
|February 12, 2026

WATCH DIRECTLY ON YOUTUBE

In February 2026, the Criminal Law Working Group convened leading experts in criminal law, prosecution, and policing to address the topic of hate crimes and enforcement:

The conversation centered on deepening understanding of the law—and what more can be done to combat hate and antisemitism.

For more information about the Canadian Criminal Law Working Group – or to request legal assistance or to volunteer legal expertise – visit www.cija.ca/cclwg.

Below is a selection of answers to some of the questions from the audience.

You might also be interested in...

An Advocacy Update for Our Community
An Advocacy Update for Our Community
Mar 06, 2026
Confront the Islamic Regime – At Home and Abroad 
Confront the Islamic Regime – At Home and Abroad 
Mar 02, 2026
Stand with the People of Iran
Stand with the People of Iran
Jan 28, 2026

Questions from the Audience: Criminal Law Webinar | February 2026

  • I believe law enforcement officials in the UK had maintained that they did not have the legal authority to control hateful protests. They seem now to have reversed that stance. If so, could Canada emulate what worked in the UK?


    The UK has had mixed results in combatting hate activities. Rather than emulating the UK experience, we should recognize that the lawful authority exists to address protests when and if they cross the line into unlawful activities in one of two ways:

    • When the protestors are violating conventional criminal laws or municipal bylaws, such as:
    • intimidation through use of threats of violence, intimidating persons, threatening damage to property, or blocking or obstructing roads and intersections
    • interfering with the lawful use, enjoyment or operation of property by others (whether on public or private property)
    • unlawful assembly, 3 or more persons assembling in a way that causes persons to reasonably fear they will disturb the peace tumultuously,
    • use of disguises during an unlawful assembly or with intent to commit an indictable offence
    • disturbing religious worship, including meetings for a moral, social or benevolent purpose, where applicable
    • Various municipal bylaws such as noise, explosive, traffic related infringements
    • if passed under C-9, new offences of intimidation or obstructing access to vulnerable spaces such as places of worship

    Or when the content of their speech violates hate speech laws such as wilful promotion of hatred, or public incitement of hatred against an identifiable group likely to lead to a breach of the peace. Bill C-9 also contemplates a new offence of wilful promotion of hatred through public display of terror related symbols. We have also proposed addition of a wilful promotion of terrorist groups or terrorist activities offence.

  • What do we do if a family member is engaging in anti-Semitic remarks to a family member as a way of upsetting them and dominating? Even though our family is Jewish (perhaps egged on by non-Jewish extended family members)

    It is important to recognize that the criminal law is not the answer to every issue that involves antisemitic conduct. Hate speech laws are confined to the most extreme forms of speech and do not apply to private conversations.

  • Please comment on the situation in Montreal, and areas where enforcement can be improved.


    Rather than confining the answer to Montreal, there are a number of jurisdictions where enforcement can be improved through robust use of existing measures to combat unlawful activities. This requires knowledge of existing legal measures and knowledge of how contemporary antisemitism manifests itself on the part of both police and prosecutors. There must also be an understanding that hate speech that meets the criminal threshold has been criminalized because it marginalizes targeted communities and gains adherents to engage in conduct, including violence – so said the Supreme Court of Canada in upholding the constitutionality of wilful promotion of hatred. This is why we stress both the value of training and education of police and prosecutors and working towards a greater will to act on the part of leadership, with support through municipal zero-tolerance policies.

  • Why are imams who incite violence against Jews in mosque ceremonies not charged with hate speech?

    It is important not to generalize about every imam’s conduct. We are working in partnership with Muslim allies, including imams who deplore the spreading of hate through radical religious figures. In relation to those who unequivocally preach hatred against Jews, there is no legal impediment to charges. Sometimes, the failure to charge is a recognition of the high threshold that must be overcome and the protection of freedom of religion under s. 2(a) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. But unfortunately, the failure to charge or prosecute may also reflect either a misunderstanding of the existing laws or an unwillingness to act in politically charged situations.

     

  • For all of the demonstrations that were taking place on campuses across North America, would the present laws not apply?

    The full range of criminal laws apply to activities on campuses. A university administration need not authorize the police to enforce criminal law measures (other than trespass laws) when crimes are being committed (like the mall scenario demonstrated). To be clear, the criminal law is not always the answer (or the only answer) for many activities that should be addressed through, for example, disciplinary proceedings or other non-criminal proceedings against those who create a poisoned environment for students on campuses.

  • Have you seen the videos of Palestinian people at Vancouver Art Gallery yelling "Death to Canada” and burning the Canadian flag?

    You are referring to a protest that took place in October 2024, on the anniversary of the Hamas October 7 atrocities that was reported to include chants of “Death to Canada,” Death to the United States and Death to Israel and burning the Canadian flag. They were not necessarily “Palestinian people” but purportedly supportive of the Palestinian movement. (We do not describe them as pro-Palestinian rallies because in our view, they do not truly support the peace and security of Palestinians through non-violent advocacy or through recognition of Hamas’ infliction of suffering and death on Palestinians).

    The rally was advertised as a commemoration of Al-Aqsa Flood, Hamas’s name for the Hamas-led October 7 atrocities. However, the activities allegedly extended well beyond what you described to include a masked speaker who told the crowd, to applause, that “We are Hezbollah and we are Hamas.” The protest was organized by Samidoun, subsequently designated as a terrorist entity.

    In our view, leaders of this hatefest should have faced potential charges of wilful promotion of hatred and public incitement of hatred, amongst other offences. Indeed, in some instances, such activities can escalate to counselling terrorism under the Criminal Code. A new wilful promotion of terror offence, if passed, would figure prominently in the assessment of charges.

  • When someone is being doxxed online egregiously in what circumstances can this be considered criminal harassment or harassing communications?

    Doxxing can qualify as criminal harassment or harassing communications under the Criminal Code. See the following article on doxxing. These answers do not provide legal advice on specific cases. Contact [email protected] for more information.

     

  • I lived in Calgary during the time Keegstra was mentioned. Would his behaviour as replicated by many today not fall under the Harassing Communications definition?

    Keegstra engaged in Holocaust denial in the classroom which was successfully prosecuted as wilful promotion of hatred. It would currently be addressed, in whole or in part, as wilful promotion of antisemitism through Holocaust denial.

  • Why were the threatening protests at Bathurst and Sheppard allowed to continue for so long?

    In our view, there were a combination of factors that led to limited enforcement actions taken at Bathurst and Sheppard when much more should have been done. Again, there is wide scope for lawful protest, regardless of its lack of popularity, but in our view, those protests crossed the line into unlawful activity in a number of instances. Police at a national level are now discussing consistency of enforcement approaches across the country to ensure robust and effective enforcement of the law.

  • Given these laws that Joseph is describing, it seems incomprehensible that police have not stopped pro Hamas demonstrators from marching through people's neighbourhoods, combined with the enjoyment of property mentioned.

    Initially, police escorted protestors into neighbourhoods to reduce the likelihood of violent confrontation. In our view, this was not an effective strategy given the intimidation, harassment and mischief involved at times when these demonstrators targeted predominantly Jewish neighborhoods. The police then were more proactive in preventing access to the neighborhoods. There were instances, in our view, where charges should also have been laid.

  • How might the proposed changes in Bill C-9 impact crowns' determination as to the reasonable prospect of conviction where so many charges are currently thrown out?

    Bill C-9 will provide sharper tools to law enforcement but is not the solution to charges being thrown out by prosecutors. Instead, we need to see consistency in approaches taken to charges targeting the community through dedicated/designated prosecutors, training and education and greater engagement with community when decisions to drop charges are made. The community cannot determine how the prosecution exercises its discretion, but prosecutors can greatly improve their consultation with complainants and the community in informing their decision-making and building more confidence in the decisions made. As well, in too many instances, prosecutors and police hold disparate views on the merits of cases, despite no changed circumstances. We need to ensure that they shared common perspectives on these cases to the extent possible.

  • Why were charges against the 3 persons who broke into the Giller awards ceremony 2 years ago dropped by the Attorney General?

    We will not comment on the specific charges dropped except to say that there have been a number of instances where, in our view, the authorities failed to recognize the long-term implications of charges being dropped as emboldening continuing conduct.

    We were also asked about the dropping of charges relating to the Indigo vandalism and about the dropping of charges more generally. We will not comment on the specific charges dropped in the Indigo case; some of the charges were not dropped; instead, defendants entered guilty pleas and findings of guilt were made.

    Without commenting on specific cases and their dispositions, we have seen a number of systemic issues that should be addressed in various jurisdictions and at a national level. These include:

    (a) a disconnect at times between police and prosecutors about the merits of hate-motivated charges, even when there have been no changed circumstances between the laying of charges and decisions to withdraw charges

    (b) failure to recognize bias, prejudice or hate motivation in cases that target the vast majority of Jews that support the right of Israel to exist or Israelis, a protected class when targeted as a result of their national origin. But even in cases where the court declines to treat these cases such as vandalism as motivated by bias, prejudice or hate, it remains an aggravating circumstance on sentencing, as one superior court judge recently found that vandalism was motivated by political beliefs. The judge stated that such conduct undermines democratic values and can lead to the type of violent activity seen in the assault on the US capitol. We also see insufficient recognition of the fact that holding Canadian Jews responsible for events in the Middle East amounts to antisemitism.

    (c) when otherwise minor criminal conduct is potentially hate-motivated, we see too many instances in which the complainants or the community are not consulted with before the prosecutorial decision is made, undermining confidence in the process even if the decision is the correct one.

  • Why haven’t the police arrested those that were protesting at the Eaton Centre?

    This will be the subject of discussion with the authorities and we will not comment further at this time.

  • If the assembly acquired a permit before coming out to the streets, does it no longer constitute unlawful assembly?

    Only certain activities require permits and this varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. A permit, even where required, does not immunize protestors from charges for unlawful activity, including unlawful assembly.

  • A number of participants asked whether additional criminal tools are needed by police when enforcement of existing laws is problematic.

    Enforcement of criminal laws varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, and from terrorist-related activity to protest activity. We wish to promote greater consistency in approach across the country. That is why we referred to a special purpose committee of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police (CACP), which Mark is the non-policing member of, to examine inconsistencies in enforcement in hate-motivated cases with a particular emphasis on antisemitic hate crimes. But a number of police officers and CACP believe that some sharper tools can build on existing tools to prompt greater enforcement. These include new intimidation and obstruction offences.

    Some tools are designed to ensure that hate-motivated crimes are treated more seriously (e.g. the new hate offence that treats hate-motivated conventional offences more seriously). The removal of the Attorney General’s consent for certain police-laid cases will improve timeliness. The statutory definition of hatred will address police concerns that their officers are unclear on the meaning of hatred. The new display of symbols offence provides greater specificity to police about the symbols to be addressed, although it must be accompanied by training on the terror symbols used.

Share this page