Oct 27, 2026
Montreal residents could face fines of up to $1,000 for insulting a police officer or other municipal employee under a new city bylaw.
A group of lawyers has challenged the rule in court, arguing that it violates freedom of expression and that its penalties could breach the constitutional protection against cruel and unusual punishment.
Advertisement
The bylaw prohibits insults, harassment, threats, abuse and intimidation, as well as offensive and aggressive behaviour toward municipal employees. First offences carry fines of $300 to $1,000, while repeat offences can bring fines of up to $2,000.
Thanks for subscribing!
The best of Money.ca delivered weekly.
By signing up, you accept Money.ca Terms of Use, Subscription Agreement, and Privacy Policy.
Why lawyers say the bylaw goes too far
At the heart of the challenge is whether the city can punish people for language deemed insulting or offensive without clearly defining what crosses the line.
The lawyers argue that the broad wording risks restricting legitimate criticism of public officials and gives authorities too much discretion over how the rule is enforced.
The Saint-Michel Legal Clinic and the Association des Juristes Progressistes filed the challenge in Quebec Superior Court. As CTV News reported, the applicants argue that the bylaw violates rights protected by the Canadian and Quebec charters, including freedom of expression.
The organizations raised concerns before the bylaw was adopted. In a September 18 press release, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, the League of Rights and Freedoms, Hoodstock and the Saint-Michel Legal Clinic warned that the proposed rule could allow arbitrary or discriminatory enforcement.
“The CJSM opposes any expansion of police powers, particularly given that current powers, including roadside stops and street checks, have been recognized by the courts as being exercised in a discriminatory manner,” said Fernando Belton, executive director of the Saint-Michel Legal Clinic, in the release.
The organizations argue that a rule allowing officers to issue fines for non-threatening remarks could disproportionately affect racialized and marginalized residents, particularly during tense interactions with police. Their central objection is that people should not face penalties simply because an official finds their words offensive.
Money.ca contacted the Canadian Civil Liberties Association for comment but did not receive a response before publication.
Advertisement
Must Read
- A single line on your car insurance policy could be inflating your premium by up to 30% — here's what to change
- Here are 5 'must-haves' that Canadians constantly overpay for. How many of these are sabotaging your budget every single month?
- Here are the 5 biggest differences between rich and poor Canadians — which side do you fall on?
Join 20,000+ readers and get Money.ca’s best stories and exclusive interviews first — clear insights curated and delivered weekly. Subscribe now.
Why Montreal introduced the rule
Montreal adopted the bylaw after videos circulated online showing a man directing misogynistic insults at a female police officer. The city has defended the measure as a way to protect municipal employees from inappropriate behaviour.
Other Quebec municipalities, including Quebec City, Laval, Longueuil and Sherbrooke, have similar bylaws. But the existence of comparable rules elsewhere does not establish whether Montreal’s version complies with constitutional protections.
The dispute is not simply about whether threats or harassment should be allowed. The question is whether the city needs such a broad rule when existing laws already address certain threats, violence and harassment, and whether the bylaw clearly distinguishes those behaviours from offensive but protected expression.
What happens next?
On Oct. 22, Quebec Superior Court Justice Eleni Yiannakis heard arguments on the lawyers’ request for an injunction to suspend the bylaw while the constitutional challenge proceeds.
Lawyer Sibel Ataogul argued that the bylaw is too broad and infringes on fundamental freedoms, including freedom of expression, and lawyer Dardia Garcelle Joseph argued that it could cause serious harm to marginalized people, according to Global News.
The judge made clear that the hearing concerned only whether enforcement should be suspended, not whether the bylaw is constitutional. As of Oct. 27, a decision on the injunction had not been reported.
For residents, the bylaw remains in force unless the court suspends it, and the constitutional challenge is still to be decided.
You May Also Like
- This 7-step plan from Dave Ramsey is designed to help you ditch debt, save more and build wealth — here’s how it works
- Prioritize these 4 critical investments and watch your net worth skyrocket
- Here are 8 solid money moves that could free up real cash every month — here's where to start
- Millionaires under 43 are reshaping investing — just 25% of their portfolios are in stocks. Here’s where their money is going
The most expensive financial mistakes are often the ones you don't see coming. Join 19,000+ Canadians who get the money moves, risks and opportunities shaping their finances — delivered free each week. Subscribe now.
Steven Brennan is a freelance finance writer based in Vancouver, BC. He holds a BA and an MA from Maynooth University, Ireland. His work regularly appears at Canadian Mortgage Trends, Lowest Rates, Loans Canada and other Canadian and U.S. brands.
