Rally in Toronto organized by Toronto4Palestine, October 28, 2023. Photo by Sikander Iqbal/Wikimedia Commons.

Toronto’s new bubble zone anti-protest mechanism, officially known as the “Access to Social Infrastructure” bylaw, is both more and less dangerous than it may appear at first glance. Less because the bylaw’s enforceability—and its constitutionality—are shaky and still to be determined, more because this municipal provision needs to be understood in the context of other bubble zone type legislation and, more broadly, as an example of the lawfare being wielded against pro-Palestinian solidarity and other left movements.

The bylaw allows a childcare centre, a place of worship, or a school (“social infrastructure”) to request that all city owned property (including streets, sidewalks, and parks) within 50 metres of the site’s boundary be designated an “access area.” Prohibited activities inside this resulting bubble zone include “acts of discouragement” or “persistent requests” aimed at inhibiting someone’s access to the social infrastructure and expressions of “objection or disapproval” on the basis of race, ethnicity, religion/creed, or other discriminatory grounds.

An access area is established when the owner of a social infrastructure attests that they “reasonably believe” that one of these prohibited activities may occur on city proper located within the proposed bubble zone. The access area remains in place for a full year (and may be renewed) and is enforced by municipal enforcement officers with the support of police “as needed.” A person convicted of contravening the bylaw faces a maximum fine of $5,000.

The bylaw passed by Toronto City Council on May 22, 2025 is actually worse than the version originally proposed by city staff. Bubble zones were expanded from 20 metres and six months duration and the requirement that an applicant show that prohibited activity had actually occurred was removed.

Several red flags are immediately apparent. The most obvious one, as opponents have consistently maintained (and the city itself recognizes), is that this bylaw is simply not necessary. In addition to all the general criminal offences often used to supress dissent (mischief, unlawful assembly, trespass, etc.), police have long relied on their “ancillary powers” to create exclusion zones and designate protest pens. Notable examples include the Toronto G20 and the RCMP’s no-go zones on Wet’suwet’en territory. Less obvious is that there is already a specific Criminal Code offence prohibiting disturbances of religious worship.

But perhaps more crucially, the bylaw’s request-based process privileges powerful voices, providing institutions and communities who already have the resources and know-how to summon the repressive power of the state with another avenue for doing so.........

© Canadian Dimension