In Canadian law, the line between protected protest and criminal conduct is not drawn by viewpoint but by effect: when expression in a public place foreseeably interferes with others’ ordinary use of that place, it can constitute the offence of causing a disturbance. The Reimer retrial is a clear illustration of how courts apply that standard to protests that move from the hallway into a children’s program room.
The Short Version
- Courts distinguish offensive or loud expression from an “externally manifested disturbance”; the latter, not the message, triggers criminal liability.
- On retrial, a judge found Derek Reimer intentionally disrupted a children’s Reading with Royalty program inside a Calgary public library, crediting eyewitnesses and corroborative video outside the room.
- The appellate path mattered: an earlier acquittal used too narrow a disturbance test; higher court guidance refocused analysis on impact on people present, not just institution-wide operations.
- Defense arguments centered on volume, lack of unaffiliated patrons’ testimony, and the principle that loud speech is not automatically criminal—points the retrial court weighed but rejected.
The legal test: conduct, context, and externally manifested disturbance
Section 175 of the Criminal Code criminalizes causing a disturbance in or near a public place by enumerated conduct—fighting, screaming, shouting, swearing, singing, or using insulting or obscene language—when that conduct produces an externally manifested disturbance of the public peace. Canadian appellate jurisprudence makes two elements decisive: the conduct must interfere, even modestly, with the ordinary and customary use of the space, and that interference must be reasonably foreseeable in the circumstances. Emotional upset alone is insufficient; the disturbance must be outwardly observable in how the place is used. That is why courts repeatedly ask not just “what was said and how loudly,” but “what happened to the people and the place.”
Applied to libraries, that inquiry is concrete. Did the program or patrons’ ability to use the space change in observable ways? Were people forced to move, did activity stop or become chaotic, did staff need to intervene, did a crowd form that altered the ordinary flow? These are the indicia that separate provocative speech—protected—and public disturbance—punishable. The test does not immunize protest; nor does it criminalize message content. It evaluates effect in context.
What the retrial court found—and why it mattered
In the Calgary case, the retrial judge concluded that Derek Reimer entered the programming room during a children’s Reading with Royalty event, wore a GoPro, and spoke at very loud volume while using religiously framed insults, with the intention to disrupt the event. The court accepted evidence that the scene inside and just outside became chaotic; staff moved children, some children cried, and a crowd gathered. The judge treated these observable consequences as the disturbance of the library’s tranquility and ordinary use by those present, not merely as private offense. The court also found that mezzanine video outside the room corroborated eyewitness accounts, even though there was no interior-room video.
These findings aligned with higher-court guidance that had already reshaped the case. An earlier trial had acquitted Reimer, reasoning that library operations continued and that loud, even offensive, speech by itself is not criminal. On appeal, that analysis was faulted as too narrow: the proper lens includes impact on the people engaged in the specific public activity, not only whether the institution as a whole shut down. The appellate ruling ordered a new trial, which in turn centered the participants’ experience—the children, caregivers, and staff in and around the room—and the foreseeability of disruption in such a confined, child-focused setting.
The defense case—and how the court weighed it
The defense advanced three main themes. First, volume: counsel argued that CCTV showed loud speaking but not screaming or yelling, and that the Crown blurred the difference between vigorous communication and enumerated conduct. Second, impact: the Crown did not call a broad slate of unaffiliated patrons, and the event ultimately continued. Third, principle: shouting in a public place is not itself an offense. These points trace directly to longstanding doctrine, and at the first trial they carried the day. At retrial, however, eyewitness testimony about frightened children, staff intervention, and crowd formation, paired with corroborative exterior video, satisfied the court that the disturbance was external, observable, and tied to Reimer’s conduct and intent, not merely to audience sensibilities.
Courts routinely confront causation questions in disturbance prosecutions: was it the protester’s behavior, the audience’s reaction, or a mix? The retrial judge answered through specificity—timing (entry during the program), proximity (inside the programming room), persistence (continuing outside, including knocking on glass), and the immediate observable consequences. That evidentiary mosaic overcame the defense’s narrower volume distinction and the absence of neutral-patron testimony. Appellate framing also mattered: where the earlier judge viewed continuation of programming as exculpatory, the appellate decision clarified that even brief or partial disruption of ordinary use can suffice.
Why context—children’s programming in a confined room—changes the analysis
Not every loud protest in a library meets the statute. But context sharpens foreseeability. A children’s reading event in a closed programming room is not an open public forum like a sidewalk; it is a defined activity with an audience—mostly children—whose ordinary use is to listen, learn, and interact with presenters. Entering that space mid-program to confront it at very loud volume predictably alters the environment, particularly for young children and their caregivers. The appellate guidance affirmed that this kind of contextualized analysis is the point of Section 175: it preserves robust expression outside while protecting the ordinary use of shared spaces within.
This is not viewpoint punishment. The same conduct analysis would apply if an equally loud supporter barged into a religious service or a civic lecture to denounce perceived bigotry. Canadian courts separate content from consequence: the state cannot criminalize you for your beliefs, but it can hold you to account when the manner and setting of your expression foreseeably interferes with others’ use of a public place.
Another Christian being picked on…Pastor Derek Reimer Trial Verdict – Guilty!
Last Friday, the verdict from Pastor Derek Reimer's recent trial was given, and he was found guilty on 2 criminal charges! This related to peaceful protests against Drag Story hours at Calgary area…
— Joe Poisson (@JoePoisson2) October 20, 2026
What this case teaches about protest strategy and public institutions
For protesters, the lesson is tactical clarity. Speak in public areas where the audience can choose to engage or walk away; avoid entering confined, ongoing programs—especially those designed for children—where your presence and volume transform the setting. Document your conduct and keep distance from the core activity; courts will scrutinize proximity, duration, and observable effects. For public institutions, the record underscores the value of proportionate security planning, clear room-use rules, trained staff responses, and preserved incident records. Those measures help de-escalate in real time and create an evidentiary trail that distinguishes protected dissent from criminal disturbance.
Sources:
lifesitenews.com, cbc.ca, law360.ca, ctvnews.ca, theepochtimes.com, criminalcodehelp.ca, ctdj.ca, ca.vlex.com
