Court upholds conviction of Wet’suwet’en land defender; New legislation raises concerns over civic freedoms

This update covers developments relating to the freedoms of expression, association and assembly in Canada from February to April 2026.

Context

UN Human Rights Committee calls on Canada to strengthen protections for fundamental freedoms

In its concluding observations on Canada’s seventh periodic report under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), adopted in March 2026, the UN Human Rights Committee raised several concerns with implications for civic space. Among them was the repeated use by provincial governments of the “notwithstanding clause”, a provision in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms that allows the temporary override of fundamental rights and shields laws from judicial review.

It also expressed concern about Québec's proposed Constitution Act (Bill 1), which remains under consideration. The Committee noted that some provisions could restrict access to effective remedies, limit the ability of publicly funded institutions to contest or support legal challenges, and weaken protections for minority rights. The Committee urged Canada to ensure that any constitutional reforms are developed through transparent and inclusive processes, with broad and meaningful participation from civil society organisations.

The Committee further highlighted concerns about allegations of human rights abuses and environmental degradation linked to Canadian companies, particularly mining corporations operating both in Canada and abroad. It highlighted barriers to effective remedies for affected communities, especially those outside Canada, and criticised the continued vacancy of the Canadian Ombudsperson for Responsible Enterprise, whose office lacks the authority to compel witness testimony or the production of documents during investigations.

It called on Canada to strengthen corporate accountability mechanisms and ensure that companies under its jurisdiction respect human rights standards, including in their overseas operations. It recommended improving access to judicial and non-judicial remedies for victims, considering the adoption of mandatory human rights due diligence legislation, and urgently appointing a new Ombudsperson with adequate independence, resources and stronger investigative powers.

Concerns were also raised about the expansion of surveillance powers for broadly defined national security purposes. The Committee cited reports that surveillance activities have increasingly targeted racial and ethnic minorities, as well as advocates for environmental rights, Indigenous land rights and Palestinian rights. The Committee also expressed concern about proposed legislation, the Strong Borders Act (Bill C-2), which could expand surveillance powers and reduce certain privacy protections, and the Combating Hate Act (Bill C-9), which criminalises the public display of certain symbols. It warned that a “vague definition of what constitutes a terrorist symbol” could be misused to silence dissenting activism. Canada was urged to ensure that national security, border security and counter-terrorism measures comply with international human rights standards and include effective safeguards, transparency and accessible remedies.

Likewise, the Committee also highlighted concerns about restrictions on freedom of expression and peaceful assembly. It noted the continued criminalisation of defamation, which carries prison sentences of up to five years, and reported restrictions on university protest encampments that may have a chilling effect on peaceful assembly and academic freedom. Canada was encouraged to consider decriminalising defamation, facilitate peaceful assembly and ensure that any restrictions on expression or assembly comply with the principles of legality, necessity and proportionality.

The Committee welcomed Canada's efforts to implement the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples but expressed concern about inadequate consultation with Indigenous Peoples on legislation and development projects affecting their lands and resources, barriers to the recognition of Indigenous land rights, and limited access to essential services in Indigenous languages. It urged Canada to ensure the free, prior and informed consent of Indigenous Peoples in decisions affecting them and to strengthen protections for their rights, lands and resources.

Finally, it expressed concern that Canadian law does not explicitly prohibit medically unnecessary genital surgeries on intersex children, aimed at achieving a “normal” sexual appearance or function, without the child’s informed consent. It also noted that the government has yet to launch a public consultation on proposed reforms to prohibit such procedures until children are mature enough to make their own decisions. The Committee called on Canada to amend its legislation, including the Criminal Code, to ensure that intersex children are not subjected to medically unnecessary surgeries without their free, full and informed consent.

Dismantling of the immigration and refugee process and protections

On 26th March 2026, Bill C-12, “Strengthening Canada’s Immigration System and Borders Act,” received royal assent, introducing some of the most significant changes to the country’s immigration and asylum framework in decades. The legislation was enacted after the government reintroduced key provisions in October 2025 that had previously formed part of Bill C-2, a broader package proposed in June 2025 but later shelved following criticism from civil society organisations and limited political support.

According to authorities, Bill C-12 aims to strengthen border management, reduce pressure on the asylum system and prevent what it describes as misuse of refugee protection procedures. The legislation introduces new eligibility requirements for asylum claims, expands information-sharing mechanisms between government departments, and grants federal authorities additional powers to manage immigration documentation during emergencies.

Legal experts have warned that the reforms substantially alter how protection claims are assessed and processed, with immediate effect, as the new eligibility restrictions may limit access to asylum procedures for certain categories of claimants and increase barriers to international protection. Concerns have also been raised about expanded information-sharing powers and their potential implications for privacy and due process safeguards.

On 27th March, Amnesty International Canadian Section, alongside a broad coalition of civil society organisations, denounced the law for “limiting the ability to seek refugee protection in Canada, enabling the mass cancellation of immigration documents and applications, and facilitating the sharing of personal information within and outside the country. Bill C-12 will put thousands of individuals at risk of persecution, violence and precarity.” On 2nd April 2026, the UN Human Rights Committee also warned about the lack of “procedural safeguards” for asylum seekers.

Despite pushback from civil society, the bill has become law. Other shifts in immigration and refugee processes have been made beyond this legislation, including a change to the Interim Federal Health Program (IFHP), requiring refugees and asylum seekers to pay a portion of their health care costs, posing a barrier to these communities to seek medical care and to providers.

Civil society warns budget bill could sideline parliamentary oversight

On 20th February 2026, over 100 legal scholars, human rights experts, Indigenous leaders, trade union representatives and civil society organisations urged parliamentarians to remove provisions contained in Part 5, Division 5 of Bill C-15, a federal budget implementation bill currently before Parliament.

The coalition warned that proposed amendments to the federal Red Tape Reduction Act, which aims to reduce regulatory burdens, would grant federal ministers broad powers to exempt individuals, corporations and public bodies from complying with a wide range of federal laws, with the exception of the Criminal Code. According to the signatories, the amendments could affect legislation relating to labour rights, the rights of Indigenous Peoples, environmental protection, public health, privacy and national security. The coalition argued that the proposals would expand executive authority while limiting parliamentary oversight, transparency and accountability.

Association

Court of Appeal upholds conviction of Wet’suwet’en chief over pipeline protest

On 28th April 2026, the British Columbia Court of Appeal upheld the conviction of Wet’suwet’en Chief Dsta’hyl (Adam Bernard Gagnon), a wing chief of the Sa Yikh (Sun House) of the Likhts’amisyu (Fireweed) Clan of the Wet’suwet’en Nation, for criminal contempt of court arising from breach of a court injunction by protesting against the construction of the Coastal GasLink pipeline, a natural gas project crossing Wet’suwet’en traditional territory. The appeal argued that the court should recognise a common law defence based on Indigenous law, specifically the Wet’suwet’en law of trespass, which Chief Dsta’hyl claimed justified actions taken against the project.

The Court acknowledged the existence of a multi-juridical legal tradition in Canada. “In British Columbia, unless incompatible with Crown sovereignty, surrendered voluntarily by treaty or extinguished by the government, this means Indigenous legal orders operate alongside the Canadian common law.” However, it held that a defence based on Indigenous law could arise only in exceptional circumstances where no lawful alternatives existed. The Court found that the appellant had access to legal mechanisms to challenge the injunction, including applications to vary, stay or terminate the order, and concluded that his actions did not constitute a measure of last resort:

“In my view, if an excusatory defence of acting pursuant to a coexisting Indigenous legal order were to be recognised, it could only be successfully invoked in limited circumstances, similar to necessity. At minimum, it would have to be grounded in conduct of last resort, with no lawfully available alternatives to breaching the court order. In this case, Chief Dsta’hyl’s conduct was not conduct of last resort. For example, he could have applied to vary, stay or terminate the Injunction.”

The Court also held that the proposed defence amounted to an impermissible collateral challenge to a valid injunction because it sought to avoid the legal effect of the order through contempt proceedings rather than established judicial processes.

The decision follows the 2024 sentencing of Chief Dsta’hyl to 60 days of house arrest for breaching the injunction. As previously reported by the CIVICUS Monitor, the Coastal GasLink project has generated longstanding opposition from the Wet’suwet’en community, who argue that the project proceeded without the free, prior and informed consent of Wet’suwet’en people on their unceded traditional territory.

In response, Amnesty International Canada criticised the ruling, saying it criminalised the defence of Indigenous lands and rights. “The Canadian state has unjustly criminalised Chief Dsta’hyl for defending the land and rights of the Wet’suwet’en people against the construction of the Coastal GasLink pipeline. According to Amnesty International, he should not have been prosecuted in the first place. Indeed, taking peaceful action to defend unceded ancestral land should not be treated as a crime.”

The ruling comes amid broader debates in British Columbia over Indigenous rights and a rise in anti-Indigenous rhetoric. In early 2026, the Law Society of British Columbia and the Canadian Bar Association BC Branch raised concerns about the announced amendments to the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act (DRIPA, SBC 2019) after Premier David Eby signalled plans to curb the courts’ role in interpreting the law. In Canada, reconciliation refers to recognising the legacy of colonial policies and rebuilding relations between the Crown and Indigenous Peoples.

On 20th January 2026, Premier Eby suggested that courts create “real confusion about what reconciliation means in practice,” and said the government would amend DRIPA to better reflect its original intent and protect private property rights. Civil society, including the Union of British Columbia Indian Chiefs, rejected the proposal, warning it would “erode the inherent, human, and Aboriginal rights of First Nations in B.C” and would “reverse decades of progress on collective reconciliation.” In 2019, British Columbia was the first province in Canada to enshrine the implementation of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples in provincial law.

On 20th April 2026, Premier Eby and the First Nations Leadership Council announced that British Columbia would not proceed with proposed changes to the DRIPA during the spring legislative session. Instead, they agreed to continue negotiations on the government’s legal concerns while affirming First Nations’ rights and the province’s commitment to uphold First Nations’ human rights.

Dissolution of Palestinian human rights organisation following terrorist designation

On 27th March 2026, Corporations Canada, a federal body responsible for overseeing the creation and compliance of non-profit organisations, dissolved Samidoun Palestinian Prisoner Solidarity Network (Le Réseau de Solidarité aux Prisonniers palestiniens Samidoun) on compliance grounds linked to its designation as a terrorist entity. The measure followed amendments introduced in November 2025 through the 2025 federal budget to the Canada Business Corporations Act, the Canada Not-for-profit Corporations Act and the Canada Cooperatives Act (Annex 5), which allow authorities to expedite the dissolution of federally incorporated entities designated as terrorist organisations under the Criminal Code.

As previously reported, in October 2024, the Government of Canada, in a joint action with the US Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC), designated Samidoun as a “terrorist group”, alleging it as a fundraising conduit for the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP), considered as a “terrorist entity” in Canada, the USA, and Europe.

Media reports indicated that Charlotte Kates, one of the organisation’s directors, was arrested in 2024 following remarks made at a public rally. Samidoun stated that authorities released her subject to conditions.

Québec adopts Bill 3 amid concerns over trade union autonomy

On 2nd April 2026, the National Assembly of Québec adopted Bill 3, an Act to improve the transparency, governance and democratic process of various associations in the workplace, which amends three core labour laws. The bill received royal assent the same day, and most provisions entered into force immediately, although some measures, including those relating to union dues, will take effect gradually until October 2026.

Bill 3 introduces significant changes to the regulation of trade unions. It divides union dues into “principal” and “optional” categories, requires separate votes on optional dues, restricts the use of mandatory dues for certain activities and imposes additional governance, financial disclosure and reporting requirements. It also expands the use of secret-ballot procedures. The Quebec government said the reforms are intended to increase transparency and accountability within unions.

While several provisions relating to transparency and participation may be compatible with international standards, the Act raises concerns about state interference in trade union autonomy. In particular, it prohibits unions from using principal dues (mandatory dues deducted from employees’ wages) to finance certain categories of litigation (Section 47.0.1 (1)), and participation in social movements and campaigns that are “political and partisan in nature” (Section 47.0.1 (2)). The concern is not that these activities are banned, but that they must be financed through optional dues, which require separate approval from members by vote (Section 38).

This could make it more difficult for unions to support activities historically undertaken beyond collective bargaining, such as strategic litigation, public policy, and campaigns linked to workers’ rights and broader human rights, thereby restricting unions’ ability to engage in wider social issues. Non-compliance with dues-allocation requirements is enforceable through the Labour Code’s penal provisions (Section 47.0.5), including a fine of CAD 5,000 to CAD 50,000 (Section 114).

The International Labour Organisation (ILO) Committee on Freedom of Association, a tripartite body set up in 1951 by the ILO to examine alleged infringements of the principles of freedom of association and the effective recognition of the right to collective bargaining, has affirmed that authorities should not dictate how unions allocate their resources except in limited circumstances involving financial accountability: “711. The control exercised by the public authorities over trade union finances should not normally exceed the obligation to submit periodic reports. The discretionary right of the authorities to carry out inspections and request information at any time entails a danger of interference in the internal administration of trade unions.”

Trade unions and civil society organisations criticised the legislation, arguing that it increases state involvement in the internal affairs of unions and may affect their operational independence, “weakening labour unions and undermining the collective power of working people”. Québec’s major trade unions organised peaceful protests against Bill 3 throughout 2025 and 2026. For example, on 29th November 2025, thousands of people demonstrated in downtown Montreal in one of the largest public protests against the legislation.

Although the government amended the bill during committee review and narrowed some of the proposed restrictions, major labour federations maintained their opposition. On 2nd April 2026, the Fédération des travailleurs et travailleuses du Québec (FTQ), Confédération des syndicats nationaux (CSN), Centrale des syndicats du Québec (CSQ), Centrale des syndicats démocratiques (CSD), Fédération autonome de l’enseignement (FAE) and Syndicat de professionnelles et professionnels du gouvernement du Québec (SPGQ) stated that Bill 3 “is a historic rollback of workers’ rights and a shameful legacy for the Legault government at the end of the parliamentary term.”

The International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) also expressed concern about recent labour reforms in Québec. It argued that Bill 3, together with other recent labour reforms, would restrict the exercise of the right to strike and weaken trade union autonomy. “What is unfolding in Quebec today is not a mere technical reform: it is a direct attack on trade union rights and democracy,” said ITUC General Secretary Luc Triangle.

Likewise, trade union organisations cited both Bill 3 and Bill 89 as part of a broader trend affecting trade union autonomy and workers’ rights in the province. Bill 89 (also known as Law 14) had already begun to be applied at the time of reporting (see Peaceful Assembly).

Workers protest conditions as labour rights concerns persist

On 24th March 2026, around 50 janitors working on Vancouver’s SkyTrain public transit system, members of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) Local 2 and their supporters, demonstrated outside Metrotown SkyTrain station to protest working conditions. At the start of February 2026, the union reported that conditions had deteriorated after the Dexterra Group assumed management of the cleaning workforce. According to media reports, the company laid off 17 workers and subjected others to union busting, intimidation, bullying and harassment. The union filed formal grievances, which remained pending before the British Columbia Labour Relations Board, the province’s labour dispute tribunal, at the time of reporting.

Concerns about labour standards in the aviation sector also prompted federal scrutiny. In early February 2026, the Government of Canada published a report, “Probe on Unpaid Work in the Airline Sector: Phase I - What we heard report”, following an investigation launched in August 2025 into compensation practices affecting flight attendants at Air Canada, WestJet and Porter Airlines. The report found that the definition of what qualifies as work is unclear and that attendants must be paid for their essential work.

Authorities launched the investigation after workers reported routinely performing unpaid duties and, in some cases, receiving compensation below the minimum wage. Air Canada flight attendants went on strike for three days prior to the start of the probe in 2025, raising these concerns. The National Airlines Council of Canada claims to meet labour laws, however, the Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE), which represents approximately 20,000 flight attendants in Canada, flagged issues with the way employers make these calculations.

Civil society organisations criticise Vancouver’s FIFA World Cup human rights plan over lack of consultation and safeguards

On 19th February 2026, the FIFA Host City Committee in Vancouver released its draft Human Rights Action Plan ahead of the 2026 FIFA World Cup, which Canada will co-host with the United States and Mexico. Developed under FIFA’s Human Rights Framework, the plan aims to identify and mitigate human rights risks associated with the tournament, including potential impacts on people experiencing homelessness and other groups at heightened risk of marginalisation.

On 26th February 2026, civil society organisations, including the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association (BCCLA), criticised both the content of the draft plan and the process used to develop it. According to the BCCLA and a coalition of community organisations monitoring the tournament’s impacts, the Host Committee failed to engage meaningfully with affected communities despite repeated requests for consultation since June 2024. Coalition members stated that authorities declined opportunities to meet during the drafting process and instead relied primarily on existing municipal bylaws and provincial and federal legislation to address potential human rights concerns.

The Host Committee released the draft plan nearly two months after its original publication deadline of late 2025, reducing the time available for public consultation before the tournament begins in June 2026. Civil society groups argued that the 57-page document does not adequately identify World Cup-specific human rights risks, establish targeted mitigation measures or provide effective mechanisms for remedy in cases of rights violations. They also expressed concern that authorities had advanced measures related to branding, commercial protections and security while leaving key human rights safeguards incomplete.

The coalition also challenged the Host Committee’s claims regarding consultation, stating that meetings with affected communities only took place after the publication of the draft plan. The BCCLA argued that existing laws and policies alone may not adequately address the specific human rights risks associated with hosting a major international sporting event, particularly for communities already facing social and economic marginalisation. Authorities expect to publish the final version of the action plan in May 2026.

Ontario Ombudsman launches first Indigenous Services Plan, as communities demand action, not promises

On 12th March 2026, Ontario’s Ombudsman Office published its first Indigenous Services Plan, committing to strengthening engagement with First Nation communities, Inuit and Métis peoples. Developed through consultations with more than 100 Indigenous participants across Ontario, the plan acknowledges the history and the ongoing legacy of colonisation, and identifies systemic issues, including anti-Indigenous racism, poverty and exclusion.

The plan introduces a more proactive oversight approach under which the Ombudsman’s Office will engage directly with Indigenous communities, enhance service accessibility and experience, and “contribute our voice and expertise to addressing systemic issues in support of reconciliation.”

Indigenous leaders welcomed the initiative but emphasised the need for concrete outcomes. Representatives from communities including Neskantaga First Nation called for concrete measures to address longstanding concerns such as inadequate infrastructure, unsafe drinking water, housing shortages and limited access to public services. They stressed the importance of translating consultations into implementation and measurable improvements.

The plan follows visits by Ombudsman staff to Asupeeschoseewagong Netum Anishinabek (Grassy Narrows) and Neskantaga First Nations in 2024 and 2025, where they documented concerns about living conditions and barriers to accessing government services.

Peaceful Assembly

Ottawa passes protest-free zone By-law as restrictions on peaceful assembly grow

On 22nd April 2026, the Ottawa City Council adopted the Safe Access to Social Infrastructure By-law, establishing a 50-metre “bubble” around schools, daycare centres, places of worship, residential care facilities, hospitals, and congregate care facilities where protest is prohibited. The by-law does not automatically apply to all eligible sites. Instead, facilities must apply for designation, which generally lasts for up to one year, requires public signage and usually operates from one hour before opening until one hour after closing, although residential care facilities may receive continuous protection.

Labour disputes and marches passing through a designated area remain exempt. Violations may result in fines ranging from CAD 150 to CAD 500, following an education-first enforcement approach that generally requires officers to issue a warning before taking enforcement action. The by-law is scheduled to enter into force on 1st August 2026.

During the debate, Councillor Sean Devine proposed a motion to protect against overreach of this by-law, stating, “Today it is schools and places of worship, tomorrow it is convention centres, then city facilities. Eventually, anything that makes people uncomfortable becomes a reason to move dissent out of sight. History shows us we do not become safer by gagging dissent.” His motion was denied.

Although the measure is narrower than permanent city-wide “bubble zone” regulations because it relies on temporary, site-specific designations, it appears to prohibit demonstrations within designated zones as a category rather than targeting harmful conduct. Under Article 21 of the ICCPR, restrictions on peaceful assembly must be lawful, necessary and proportionate, and should be based on an individual assessment of the risks posed by a particular assembly.

The Canadian Civil Liberties Association (CCLA) has criticised the growing use of municipal bubble-zone by-laws, arguing that broad restrictions may have a chilling effect on peaceful protest and warning that similar measures could be used to suppress marginalised voices.

In a separate incident, on 17th February 2026, Winnipeg’s Executive Policy Committee, the city’s main executive body responsible for recommending major policies to the City Council, considered a similar regulation: Safe Access to Vulnerable Infrastructure By-law. The proposal would establish 100-metre protest-free zones around a broad range of facilities, including schools, childcare centres, places of worship, hospitals, libraries, community centres and cultural institutions.

It aims to protect access to these facilities from intimidation, harassment and obstruction by prohibiting broadly defined “nuisance demonstrations” within designated zones:

“…defines nuisance demonstrations as any protest that involves expression of objection or disapproval toward an idea or action 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, by any means including graphic, verbal, or written.”

The proposal would also introduce fines of CAD 500 for a first offence, CAD 1,000 for a second offence and CAD 5,000 for subsequent offences. After significant outcry from the public over the broad language of the by-law, which they say would threaten free speech and could hold back social change, the city shelved it.

Québec adopts law restricting protests near elected officials’ homes

On 10th December 2025, Québec’s Minister of Public Security, Ian Lafrenière, introduced Bill 13, an Act to promote the population’s safety and sense of security and to amend various provisions. The National Assembly of Québec, the province’s legislature, adopted the bill on 2nd April 2026, and it received Royal Assent later that day as Chapter 7 of the Statutes of Québec, 2026. Most provisions entered into force immediately.

The legislation introduces several restrictions on the exercise of the freedom of peaceful assembly. It prohibits demonstrations within 50 metres of the residence of a member of the National Assembly of Québec, a federal Member of Parliament, a municipal elected official or an elected warden, regardless of whether the demonstration is peaceful or involves threatening, obstructive or violent conduct. In addition, people attending demonstrations may not possess, without a valid reason, an object capable of being used to injure, threaten or intimidate another person or damage property. If police have reasonable grounds to believe this provision has been breached, they may conduct a warrantless search of individuals and their immediate surroundings and seize the relevant objects.

The Act also prohibits the public display of symbols associated with entities included on a provincial list of criminal purpose organisations. Violations are punishable by fines ranging from CAD 750 to CAD 15,000, and municipalities may prosecute offences committed within their jurisdiction.

Civil society organisations argued that the legislation imposes disproportionate restrictions on the freedom of peaceful assembly and expression. In its submission to the parliamentary committee reviewing the bill, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association (CCLA), a civil rights organisation, argued that several provisions duplicate existing offences under Canada’s Criminal Code while lowering the threshold for police intervention by focusing on an object’s potential use rather than an intention to use it unlawfully. The CCLA also warned that the legislation’s broad preventive approach could disproportionately affect peaceful protesters and marginalised communities. It further argued that restrictions based on protecting a subjective “sense of security” could undermine the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and expression protected under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and international human rights law.

Toronto police ban demonstrations from North York residential streets

On 24th March 2026, according to media reports, Toronto Police Service (TPS) announced a ban on demonstrations in the residential areas of Bathurst Street and Sheppard Avenue in North York, a hot spot for Pro-Palestinian demonstrations since October 2023, and one of Toronto's largest Jewish communities. Police stated that protests could continue on the main roads but warned that participants entering designated residential areas after being verbally asked to leave could face arrest for obstructing police.

The directive followed several weeks of demonstrations in the area, which police said had escalated and raised public safety concerns. Civil society organisations criticised the measure as a geographically targeted restriction on peaceful assembly that lacked a legislative basis: “The Toronto Police Service (TPS)’s proposed ban on any pro-Palestinian protest on certain residential streets in North York raises serious concerns about violations of Charter-protected rights. TPS doesn’t need to resort to broad bans on free expression to respond to unlawful activity.”

On 2nd April 2026, following search warrants executed at a residence and a storage unit, police arrested one protester, Muhammad Anas, and charged him with public incitement of hatred. Police also seized protest signs, mobile phones and computers as part of the investigation. At the time of writing, the investigation remained ongoing, and police stated that further charges were possible.

Labour tribunal applies new strike restrictions under Bill 89

On 13th March 2026, the Québec Administrative Labour Tribunal (Tribunal administratif du travail, TAT) issued its first decision (1461070-71-2602) under the province’s new minimum-services provisions, ordering childcare workers at Centre de la petite enfance Le Jardin de Robi inc. to maintain minimum services during an ongoing strike. The Tribunal found that the unlimited general strike, which had continued since 22nd October 2025 following 20 earlier strike days, had reached a point where its effects on the population became disproportionate.

It held that the prolonged interruption of childcare services undermined children’s social well-being and parents’ socio-economic security, particularly that of women, who continued to assume a disproportionate share of childcare responsibilities. The Tribunal concluded that these impacts justified limiting the exercise of the right to strike while allowing industrial action to continue under a minimum-services regime. On that basis, the Tribunal ruled that the right to strike could be limited through the provision of minimum services while allowing the industrial action to continue. It did not itself determine the content of those services. Instead, it ordered the parties to negotiate a minimum-services agreement, which the Tribunal subsequently approved, with amendments, in a separate decision on 26th March 2026.

The ruling followed Decree 144-2026, adopted by the Québec government on 5th February 2026, which designated the dispute as the first case to proceed under Bill 89 (Act respecting greater consideration of the needs of the population in the event of a strike or lock-out, or c.14). The legislation marked a significant departure from Québec’s previous essential-services Labour Code which only permitted restrictions where a strike threatened public health or safety. As previously reported by the CIVICUS Monitor, Bill 89 instead empowers the Tribunal to require minimum services whenever a strike is considered likely to cause serious harm to the population’s social, economic or environmental well-being, substantially broadening the circumstances in which the right to strike may be restricted.

While the Tribunal recognised the disproportionate burden that prolonged childcare closures place on women, trade unions have argued that Bill 89 responds to these broader social issues by expanding restrictions on the right to strike rather than by addressing their underlying causes. On 13th March 2026, the Centrale des syndicats du Québec (CSQ) described the ruling as confirming its concerns that the legislation would erode workers’ bargaining power through the highly vague concept of the population’s “well-being”.

International Women’s Day marches draw thousands across Canada

On 7th March 2026, thousands of people joined Toronto’s 48th annual International Women’s Day Rally and March. Under the theme “Rise and Resist: Uniting for a New World”, protesters gathered at the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education before marching through central Toronto to Toronto Metropolitan University.

In Montréal, protesters gathered at Norman Bethune Square before marching through the city. Participants highlighted issues of immigration, political repression, Indigenous rights, and economic inequality. “I’m just hoping that we have this time to be on the streets, make our point clear, talk about how angry we are with what’s going on around the world and also at home with the austerity measures that we see being taken. I just wanted to be a place for us to express our rage and also celebrate together and come together,” said Norah Finlay, a member of Women of Diverse Origins (WDO).

Mass Iran solidarity demonstrations

On 14th February 2026, around 350,000 people marched in Toronto, Canada’s largest city, in solidarity with anti-government protests in Iran, among the largest demonstrations recorded in Toronto in recent years. Protesters called for an end to government repression in Iran as widespread protests inside the country have been met with violent crackdowns.

Police also estimated that around 50,000 people demonstrated in Vancouver, while solidarity rallies took place in Montréal and Ottawa in January 2026. “It’s hard to see that our friends and families in Iran are being kept in prison for no reason, being shot in the head for (using) their democratic voice,” said Nima Najafi at the Toronto protest.

According to media reports, police arrested a man before the demonstration in Toronto over an alleged online threat to bring a firearm to the rally. No further incidents were reported.

Environmental groups stage symbolic protest against Gatineau housing

On 23rd April 2026, dozens of environmental activists and members of the Centrale des syndicats du Québec (CSQ), one of Québec’s largest trade union federations, gathered in Gatineau, Québec, to oppose a proposed residential development that would affect the Champlain-Voyageurs ecological corridor.

Protesters formed a large human mural on the site proposed for development to highlight the importance of preserving the wildlife corridor. Participants called on the authorities to halt the proposed development, arguing that it would damage the ecological corridor and reduce biodiversity in the area.

Expression

Bill C-9 risks freedom of expression and peaceful assembly

On 25th March 2026, the House of Commons of Canada passed Bill C-9 “An Act to amend the Criminal Code (hate propaganda, hate crime and access to religious or cultural places)”, amending the Criminal Code by creating offences related to hate symbols, hate-motivated crimes, intimidation, and obstruction around certain places that are primarily used for religious worship or by an identifiable group for certain purposes.

The Act inserts a new hate-propaganda offence in Criminal Code Section 319(2.2), criminalising the wilful promotion of hatred through the public display of symbols principally associated with listed terrorist entities, Nazi symbols, or symbols that closely resemble them. It also introduces statutory defences in Section 319(3.2) for legitimate journalistic, educational and artistic expression, and for good-faith displays intended to expose hatred. Beyond hate propaganda, the Act creates a standalone hate-crime offence (Section 320.1001), with penalties linked to the underlying offence, and new intimidation (Section 423.3.1) and obstruction (Section 423.3.2) offences protecting access to religious and community institutions.

Although the government has stressed that the new offences require proof of the wilful promotion of hatred rather than merely offensive or controversial expression, several provisions nevertheless raise questions under both the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and international human rights law. For example, the new symbol offence (Section 319(2.2) does not expressly require proof that the display incited others, created a likelihood of resulting harm or involved any degree of imminence. It may therefore extend beyond the narrow category of expression that States are required to prohibit under article 20.2 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). These considerations also form part of the UN Rabat Plan of Action’s six-part threshold test, which examines context, the speaker, intent, content and form, the extent of the speech act, and the likelihood, including imminence, of harm.

This can be particularly sensitive where a movement, flag, slogan or emblem is associated with a listed organisation, political cause or liberation movement. Sikh organisations, for example, warned that unclear symbol rules could interact dangerously with foreign interference and transnational repression targeting diaspora activists.

The new obstruction offence raises parallel concerns regarding freedom of expression and peaceful assembly. Section 423.3(2) criminalises, without lawful authority, intentionally obstructing or interfering with another person’s lawful access to specified religious, cultural, educational and community premises. Although Section 423.3(4) protects attendance undertaken solely to obtain or communicate information, the offence does not expressly require that the obstruction be violent, threatening, prolonged, substantial or motivated by hatred. It could therefore potentially apply to peaceful pickets, vigils, labour action or demonstrations that temporarily impede access. In December 2025, the Canadian Labour Congress sustained that the provision could be used against strikes and picketing, particularly because the protected locations include educational institutions, community buildings and other workplaces. It also raised concerns about disproportionate enforcement against Indigenous, Black and racialised communities.

On 2nd April 2026, a civil society coalition, including Amnesty International Canada, Canadian Civil Liberties Association, Canadian Muslim Lawyers Association, Independent Jewish Voices, the Centre for Free Expression and others, warned that vague offences based on concepts such as fear, broad obstruction provisions and the expansion of terrorism-related symbol offences could facilitate arbitrary or discriminatory enforcement while producing a chilling effect on lawful protest and political expression. Likewise, the coalition criticised the accelerated parliamentary process, arguing that the government curtailed meaningful consideration of amendments proposed by civil society. They also called on the Senate of Canada to reject Bill C-9 and vote against its passage.

This is not the first time civil society coalitions have sounded alarms over the broad discretionary powers and discriminatory nature of this legislation, as noted in CIVICUS’ previous update. The UN Human Rights Committee raised its concerns about C-9 and its “potential instrumentalization of a vague definition of what constitutes a terrorist symbol and possible misuse of the act to silence dissenting activism” (see Context).

Law enforcement overreach

On 12th March 2026, the Minister of Public Safety, Gary Anandasangaree, introduced Bill C-22 (An Act respecting lawful access) in the House of Commons, where it received first reading. It aims to modernise the country’s “provisions respecting the timely gathering and production of data and information during an investigation.” If adopted, it would expand investigative powers available to law enforcement and the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) by lowering the threshold for law enforcement agencies to gain access to personal data and communications of people in Canada.

It would also force companies to modify their systems to facilitate government surveillance and data collection, requiring that online platforms retain user metadata – revealing who they talk to, and when and how, where they travel and more – for up to a year. Meta, Apple, NordVPN, and Packetlabs have also warned of the security-related vulnerabilities of passing this law, related to hacking and encryption. Signal and DuckDuckGo have even threatened to leave Canada if C-22 is adopted.

These policy shifts would have ramifications on the right to privacy as well as freedom of expression and association, and according to the International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group, would serve as only the latest mechanism for monitoring and surveilling activists and organisers. This is the third time the current Canadian government has sought to pass sweeping surveillance powers, allowing federal law enforcement to request information from messaging platforms without informing their users.

In response, on 21st April 2026, at least 29 civil society leaders and organisations signed on to a letter calling for the withdrawal of C-22. "We call on all Members of Parliament to reject Bill C-22; and we call on the government to commit to meaningful, good faith and evidence-based consultation with the public regarding these and any future proposals to expand surveillance powers in Canada."

Ontario restricts access to government records through omnibus budget legislation

On 26th March 2026, Ontario’s Minister of Finance, Peter Bethlenfalvy, introduced Bill 97 (Plan to Protect Ontario Act (Budget Measures 2026)), an omnibus budget bill that includes significant amendments to the province’s freedom of information legislation. The bill passed third reading on 23rd April 2026 and received Royal Assent on 24th April 2026.

Among its most controversial provisions, Schedules 7 and 11 amend the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) and the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (MFIPPA) by creating a new statutory exclusion for records held by political offices. New section 65 provides that the Act does not apply to records relating to the personal, political or constituency affairs of a member of the Executive Council, a parliamentary assistant or their staff.

While Ontario’s government claims this is a move to protect personal data, this information is already protected under FIPPA. According to CCLA’s Bussières McNicoll, “Bill 97 is a significant blow to government transparency in Ontario, undermining a crucial tool used by journalists, researchers and oversight organisations to hold government officials accountable. The law’s retroactive application is particularly concerning, because it allows the government to avoid disclosure of records that have already been requested.”

Wrongful limitations on media coverage

On 4th February 2026, the British Columbia Office of the Human Rights Commissioner released its report on the inquiry of media exclusion from the April 2023 Hastings. The report concluded that exclusions placed on the media in their effort to cover the removal of an unhoused community from an encampment in Vancouver were not in alignment with human rights standards and that oversight of law enforcement was inadequate. It called on governing bodies and police departments to end use of media exclusion zones, train law enforcement on the role of the press, and reform law enforcement procedures, among other recommendations.