Paul Tuns:
In July, the Macdonald-Laurier Institute published a paper by Christine Van Geyn, a lawyer and litigation director of the Canadian Constitution Foundation, titled “Anti-free speech ‘bubble laws’ are unconstitutional – and expanding. We need to stop them.”
Van Geyn wrote that “From one province in 1995 to thousands of locations across multiple cities by 2025, ‘bubble zone’ laws have significantly and rapidly expanded speech restrictions in Canada.”
The first bubble zone restricting protests was in Ontario when the Bob Rae government imposed a temporary injunction banning pro-life witnessing near abortuaries.
Since then, bubble zones have “metastasized into sweeping municipal bylaws that silence political debate on topics from transgender rights to drug addiction to foreign policy. Van Geyn said bubble zones “restrict protests near specific locations, often under laws peppered with terms like ‘safety,’ ‘access,’ and ‘inclusion’.” Admitting that many Canadians may be made uncomfortable about the ideas expressed by demonstrators, Van Geyn said that politicians and society “cannot ignore grievances they would rather dismiss.” She explained, “When protests are in places that leave people feeling uncomfortable, the public and politicians pay attention. It is in these places where protests have the most practical impact. This is one reason why protest is protected in our constitution.”
Van Geyn said while the Charter of Rights and Freedoms does protect freedom of expression, “there is no right not to be offended.” She said, “Were the Charter to exclude controversial speech from protection, the right would be meaningless.”
She said, “Being exposed to controversial viewpoints is part of democracy and exposure to different perspectives builds individual resilience and a stronger democracy.”
Anti-free speech bubble zones, on the other hand, “make us individually frail and chip away at the foundation of our democratic society.”
Van Geyn listed several court cases that affirm freedom of expression, including the 1987 Ontario Court of Appeal decision in R. v. Kopyto, which called the freedom “the very life-blood of democracy. In its 1989 decision Edmonton Journal v. Alberta (Attorney General), the Supreme Court said, “It is difficult to imagine a guaranteed right more important to a democratic society than freedom of expression… It seems that the rights enshrined in s.2(b) should therefore only be restricted in the clearest of circumstances.”
Van Geyn said the “governing principle in freedom of expression interpretation is content neutrality.” That is, governments cannot “restrict speech based on its message.”
Despite jurisprudence upholding freedom of expression, Van Geyn noted, “governments are increasingly relying on ‘bubble zones’ to stop protests.”
Van Geyn argued that contrary to claims of defenders of bubble zones who argue that they do not limit freedoms but merely provide safe spaces for certain activities and individuals, “Limiting protest based on location, especially when the location is tied to the message, can amount to government censorship” because “The space or location is often essential to a protest’s meaning and impact.” Forcing demonstrations to alternative locations where the intended audience will not see them “dilutes their message and constitutes content-based suppression.”
Van Geyn said that issues of safety can be addressed through existing laws against arson, trespassing, firearms offences, violence, and uttering threats.
Van Geyn reported in detail the development of anti-free speech bubble zones used against pro-lifers, initially to prevent blockades of abortion businesses. Yet when “the protesters replaced the blockades with more peaceful methods of getting their message across such as picketing, prayer vigils, leafleting, and ‘sidewalk counselling’ … governments still took steps to restrict them.”
Between 1995 and 2025, seven provinces enacted bubble zone laws curtailing the free speech and free assembly rights of pro-life demonstrators. Quebec Life Coalition challenged the law in Quebec but the court ruled that the bubble zones were a justified limitation on free speech.
Over the past five years, bubble zones were enacted to prevent protests at hospitals by members of the public upset with COVID restrictions. British Columbia passed “Access to Services (COVID-19) Act preventing any demonstration within 20 metres of a hospital, school, or testing/vaccination site. Quebec implemented a 50-metre buffer zone around all health care and education sites. Nova Scotia and Alberta soon followed. Violations in Alberta were susceptible to fines of up to $25,000 and jail time if protestors blocked access to hospitals.
Van Geyn said that “Criminal law already covered” conduct that disrupted access to hospitals. The COVID bubble zones “appeared more political than practical, driven by a polarized environment and the desire of provincial governments to be seen as taking strong action against a vocal minority opposed to vaccine mandates and lockdowns.”
Also in 2020, Calgary passed the School Safe Zones Bylaw, restricting “advocacy messaging” within 150 metres of schools during the school day. In 2024, B.C. enacted a 20-metre bubble zone around all elementary and high schools in the province from 7 am to 6 pm and during extracurricular activities. These bubble zones were prompted by protests against B.C.’s sexual orientation and gender identity (SOGI) curriculum.
In 2023, Calgary passed the Safe and Inclusive Access Bylaw to prevent protests against drag queen story times at libraries. The 100-metre free speech exclusion zone covers all city facilities, including libraries, recreation centres, and art spaces. Violators face fines of up to $10,000 and a year in jail.
Van Geyn said “the Calgary bylaw puts the government in charge of deciding which protests are permitted and which are prohibited based on the content” because it prohibits “specified protests” that are an “expression of objection or disapproval” about certain topics, determined by city officials. Among the ideas and actions that are potentially objectionable, the city bylaw lists anything “related to race, religious beliefs, colour, gender, gender identity, gender expression, physical disability, mental disability, age, ancestry, place of origin, marital status, source of income, family status or sexual orientation.” Van Geyn said “When government decides which topics are off-limits, free expression is no longer protected.”
Other cities followed the Calgary example. Vaughan, Ont., passed the Protecting Vulnerable Social Infrastructure Bylaw in 2024 forbidding so-called “nuisance demonstrations” within 100 metres of childcare centres, care facilities, hospitals, schools, and places of worship.” The standard to be defined as a nuisance is the possibility that the protest would intimidate others. The fine for violations could reach $100,000. Brampton, Oakville, and Toronto enacted similar bylaws between November 2024 and May 2025. Toronto’s bylaw requires that a facility apply for the bubble zone if they fear “acts of discouragement” (discouraging attendance at a location).
Van Geyn said, “Because peaceful protest inherently involves disapproval and discouragement, the bylaw effectively hands private actors the power to veto street-level expression and assembly at approximately 3000 different locations in the city.”
Federally, the Liberal government was ready to table a bill this fall making it a criminal offense to obstruct places of worship. Federal Justice Minister Sean Fraser said such a measure was necessary to fight “extraordinary discrimination – antisemitism, Islamophobia, and other forms of hate.”
Van Gyen said bubble zones “suffocat(e) the lifeblood of democracy.” While “proponents of bubble zones believe they are protecting the vulnerable,” they are, in fact, “new architecture of censorship, where fear, offense, and subjective mental wellbeing become the legal standard … to silence expression” private actors or the government “dislike, without requiring evidence of harm, and often without democratic scrutiny.”
She concluded, “once the state begins picking which ideas may be heard and where they may be spoken, the people are no longer sovereign. And if protest is pushed out of sight, its power to force people to take notice, and therefore to transform, dies with it.”
