Two Men Legally Challenge Calgary Transit for Tickets Following Alleged Private Conversation

A man waits for transit in Calgary on March 18, 2020. The Canadian Press/Jeff McIntosh

Two men have retained legal representation and are asking Calgary Transit to clarify their charges, saying they were ticketed after they had a private conversation while on their way to Calgary’s 1 Million March 4 Children protest last month.

The conversation had allegedly interfered with the “comfort” of another transit user. A city bylaw prohibits anyone on transit property from engaging in activity that would “interfere with the comfort, convenience, or quiet use and enjoyment of the transit system of any reasonable person.”

One of the men was handcuffed after exiting the Calgary C-Train and both were served with a court summons by transit authorities. The incident occurred while the men were on their way to Calgary’s 1 Million March 4 Children protest last month.

Both men, who are scheduled to appear in court in late November, will be represented by The Democracy Fund (TDF), a charitable Canadian organization that provides legal funding related to civil liberties litigation.

“The men, who have not been told what they did to contravene the by-law, report having had a private conversation on the C-train with a like-minded passenger enroute to the march,” the TDF said in an Oct. 24 news release, adding that “the city of Calgary has yet to disclose details of impugned communications.”

TDF said that although the train was mostly empty, the conversation was overheard and reported to transit authorities. The men were detained by transit officers after exiting the train and were not allowed to leave until the identity of the man who was handcuffed could be confirmed.

A spokeswoman for Calgary Transit said it could not comment on a matter while it was ongoing before the courts.

According to TDF’s litigation director, lawyer Alan Honner, the specified penalty for the alleged offence is $300.

The 1 Million March 4 Children took place nationally, in cities across Canada on Sept. 20. Crowds of thousands gathered to protest gender ideology teaching in schools, and schools keeping gender identity requests from children secret from their parents. Counter-protesters also gathered and accused the march of being based on “hate.”

Calgary Bylaw

Calgary also introduced a new bylaw outlawing “discriminatory protests near public facilities” in March to include public pools, recreation centres, and libraries. The new “Safe & Inclusive Access Bylaw” follows protests about drag queen story hour events for children at public libraries.

Calgary’s city council voted 10–5 in favour of passing the Safe and Inclusive Access Bylaw on March 14, using an expedited basis that did not include the usual committee meetings and public consultation process. The city also voted 11–4 to change a bylaw about street harassment to include “intimidation.”

The specific types of protests banned are those that express “objection or disapproval” toward ideas or actions 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,” according to a city council release.

“It’s important to note that there is no right to not be annoyed, to not be offended,” Canadian Constitution Foundation (CCF) lawyer Joanna Baron previously told The Epoch Times.

She argues that harmful behaviours are already regulated by the Criminal Code, and such bylaws go beyond what the Supreme Court has deemed an appropriate limit on free speech. They also arguably go beyond a city’s authority, she said.

Mr. Honer agrees that the bylaw is going to capture even protests that could be popular with the public. He told The Epoch Times on Oct. 24 that the Calgary bylaw “is one of the more troubling bylaws because it arguably restricts protests against things like antisemitism, which is probably not what council intended.”

Trend

TDF said the latest tickets are part of an emerging trend of new city bylaws “that punish private communications that are controversial but not criminal.”

The city of London, Ont., is one example cited by TDF. A Graphic Image Delivery bylaw came into effect in that city in May 2022 that regulates the delivery of “graphic images” to residences in the city.

The bylaw includes a definition of a “graphic image” as “an image or photograph showing, or purporting to show a fetus or any part of a fetus.”

“The narrow definition of a graphic image begs the question of whether council is trying to restrict pro-life expression,” says Mr.  Honner. “Why else would only images of fetuses, no matter how benign, be restricted?”

Delivery of such images is regulated with rules such as delivering the image in a sealed envelope, marking it with the sender’s name and address, and placing a warning about a graphic image on the envelope or package.

TDF said other places, such as Edmonton, and Waterloo, Ont., have passed “almost identical bylaws” that regulate private communications on municipal property.

In Waterloo, as of Oct. 27, a bylaw prohibits “communicating, causing or permitting communication” with any person in a way that makes that person “reasonably” feel harassed on municipal property.

“The definition of harassed includes, among other things, feeling troubled, worried or experiencing objectionable comments,” said TDF.

Mr. Honner appeared before council to speak against the bylaw, which was ultimately passed and will come into effect on Jan. 1, 2024.

TDF said municipal documents indicated that Waterloo modelled its bylaw after Edmonton’s.

“The regional municipality says they have a problem with discrimination,” says Mr. Honner. “Unfortunately, councillors decided to copy the wording of a deeply flawed Edmonton bylaw rather than make their own efforts to combat discrimination.

The Canadian Press and Tara MacIsaac contributed to this report.