Sarah Mills: Left-lane hoggers are everywhere
Passing lanes allow a faster driver to pass another vehicle. But Sarah Mills says it seems the left-lane hoggers have es...
MONTREAL — Lawyers told Quebec Superior Court on Thursday that it should suspend a recently-adopted bylaw banning insults against employees of the City of Montreal, including police officers.
Those seeking an injunction argued that the bylaw infringes on Charter rights, while representatives of the city countered that the rule protects public workers and all Montrealers.
The bylaw prohibits insults, harassment, threats, abuse and intimidation, as well as offensive and aggressive behaviour and can lead to fines of between $300 and $1,000 for a first offence, with subsequent offences carrying fines of up to $2,000.
Justice Eleni Yiannakis first heard arguments from lawyers representing an association for progressive jurists and the St-Michel legal clinic. Before the lawyers pleaded their case, Yiannakis stressed that she will rule only on the request for the injunction and not on the constitutionality of the bylaw.
Lawyer Sibel Ataogul told Yiannakis that the bylaw is too broad and encroaches on fundamental freedoms, including freedom of expression, and is against public interest.
She argued that some of the language in the bylaw, namely banning “offensive behaviour” and “insults,” is too vague and goes beyond shielding city employees from violence. Because the rule is penal rather than administrative, offenders can be subject to arrests, detention and having a public record even if acquitted, she said.
“The city went very far,” she told the judge. “Do we really want to live in a society where incivility…is penalized with an infraction?”
The lawyer said that there are laws against violence, harassment and threats in place. The city also has rules preventing loud noises and disturbing the peace. Meanwhile, Ataogul argued, the Supreme Court has already ruled that people “have the most basic right to say something offensive.”
The group of lawyers has filed a constitutional challenge against the city’s rule, which will be heard at a later date. They claim the bylaw infringes on freedom of expression and the right to protection against cruel and unusual punishment.
To obtain the injunction, the lawyers must prove that a right is being infringed upon and that serious and irreparable harm is likely to occur without the court order. The judge will also consider arguments on whether the injunction would cause more harm than it prevents.
Lawyer Dardia Garcelle Joseph argued that the bylaw will mainly apply to interactions with police and can lead to serious harm to those already marginalized.
She suggested that the city couched its true intentions of protecting police officers by ensuring the rule applies to all interactions with municipal employees.
She said the city has already publicly recognized that its police force has a racial profiling problem and that the bylaw will harm racialized citizens, who are already stopped more often than their white counterparts.
“The effects (of the bylaw) are predictable,” said Garcelle Joseph.
The bylaw was drafted after a video of a young man hurling misogynistic insults at a police officer went viral. The man later said he was a victim of racial profiling. He has been charged with defamatory libel.
Michelle Picard, one of the lawyers representing the city, stressed that the bylaw is in the public interest and protects every Montrealer. She noted that several other municipalities in Quebec have similar bylaws in place that have not been contested.
She said there is no need for an injunction as people “continue to express themselves like they always have, we just ask that they be respectful.”
However, Ataogul argued that when individual fines have been contested, judges across the province have not agreed on what constitutes an insult, including whether the word “racist” qualifies.
Picard also pushed back against the claim that the bylaw had hidden motives, adding that there has been a marked “deterioration of public debate” that must be addressed.
The lawyer said the bylaw was worded to include not only verbal harassment, but also nonverbal behaviour. She added that the legal definitions of verbal violence have evolved and that freedom of expression is not absolute.
“It protects the search for truth, personal expression and democratic debate,” she said.
She also accused the injunction applicants of arguing on the merits of the case, and not the criteria required for an injunction.
Yiannakis told the lawyers on both sides that they lacked proof to support their arguments. She said the lawyers have taken claims of racial profiling and increasing incivility as a given without submitting real evidence.
With the bylaw having only been in place for 22 days, the judge said it can be difficult to demonstrate it has caused serious harm.
Yiannakis said she will deliberate and hand down her judgement at a later date.
This report by The Canadian Press was first published Oct. 22, 2026.
Erika Morris, The Canadian Press
