Question from SE:
One thing I noticed with the Al-Quds Day application is there was no grounding in a legal proceeding. How could this happen? Is it because it was brought by the Attorney General? And he wasn't required to file a legal action from which an injunction would be granted?

FB:
It could be that the request for interlocutory relief stood on its own.

SE:
I just wanted to throw that out there because it perplexed me.

And we're done.

I'll try to go back and correct typos, but I can't guarantee that I will get it done immediately.

#LawAndProtest

Up now:

Stephen Ellis.

He is speaking about the attempted injunction at the 401 Overpass, and the University of Waterloo attempted injunction against their encampment, (which the university did not even have to test because the students folded as a result of the threat).

The first one was brought by B'nai Brith and it was moot as the police had already stated they were not going to allow any protests there.

The University of Waterloo threatened to sue the students for a million and a half dollars. The students responded by leaving. The admin at the University of Waterloo is still pursuing the student group.

He is also mentioning McGill, two actions that were brought to the Superior Court, claiming that Jewish students felt intimidated by the encampment and threatened by its existence. The students making the claim made no actual evidence of any imminent harm, and that was thrown out.

Contrast that with the University of Toronto where the strategy was to go with property rights, and it was upheld.

In the end, McGill ended up agreeing to disclose their Investments. Thus the students won before they left.

#LawAndProtest

Next up:

Shane Martinez, talking about interlocutory injunctions. He speaks specifically about the attempts to enjoin the Al-Quds Day march, and Tafsik's attempt to prevent the Palestinian flag being raised over City Hall.

For the AQD rally:
• There was no record even of arrests at past events.
• The premise was the poster had a picture of a burning building and the words no to war, and they claimed that the building might be in Israel.

Section 2C of the Charter was upheld.

For the second matter(flag-raising):
• There was no serious that should be tried;
• the City had full authority to raise the flag and
• Canada had recognized the state of Palestine.

Tafsik repeatedly put falsehoods in their sworn statements to the Court.

Court found there would be no irreparable harm to the Jewish community in fact there were Jewish people at the flag raising. In fact it would do irreparable harm to the Palestinian Community by denying them access to a service given to other communities.

The bottom line is that even though the claims are ridiculous, you have to invest the time and resources to counter them, and you cannot assume the Court will find them as meritless as you do.

#LawAndProtest

Perusing the ruling from today's injunction at my leisure.

Looking for a copy of it online for you to join me, if you're interested.

There's a copy of the initial filing and the ruling here now:
https://limewire.com/d/E5QWE#R4yM42cYs8

#AlQudsDay2026 #Toronto #TorontoActions #LawAndProtest

This is a fascinating debate.

I (not a lawyer) have thought the encampment rulings need to be challenged for the sake of the future, pretty much since day one of the decision(s).

This group is a mix of specialties, including a couple of property lawyers, from Canada and the U.K. (same underlying principles).

I'm glad to be invited to listen in.

#ProtestLaw #LawAndProtest