By Peter Copeland, Sheryl Saperia, and Mark Sandler
September 3, 2026
In recent years, and with particular intensity since the October 7 Hamas terrorist attacks in Israel, antisemitism has become increasingly normalized in daily life worldwide. Canada is not immune. Harassment, intimidation, and violence against Jewish Canadians are rising, threatening not only individual safety but also the security and cohesion of entire communities and the country as a whole. Left unchecked, hatred and illegal behaviour erode confidence in the rule of law and weaken Canada’s democratic foundations.
Fortunately, the legal foundations upon which Canada can confront this threat already exist. Canadian criminal law prohibits hate propaganda, including incitement of hatred, and violent crimes motivated by hate against identifiable groups. Our highest court has confirmed that wilful promotion of hatred represents a reasonable and justified limit on freedom of expression. Courts and the Criminal Code recognize that harsher penalties apply when crimes target communities and their members on the basis of identity. Holocaust denial, arson against synagogues, intimidation of congregations, and unlawful assemblies aimed at Jewish institutions are all prosecutable. Canadian law also criminalizes terrorist financing and other types of participation in terrorist activities. Immigration law provides tools to screen and deport those who bring their hatred to Canadian shores.
Yet many of our laws are underutilized, unevenly enforced, or applied inconsistently across jurisdictions. The gap between the promise of equal protection and the day-to-day reality that Jewish Canadians face has become dangerously wide.
Despite many recent improvements, police often do not use all the legal tools available to them, citing evidentiary challenges or hesitancy around politically contentious issues. Digital platforms present additional obstacles; through them hate spreads quickly and evidence disappears before it can be preserved. Privacy safeguards complicate investigations while institutions meant to protect victims too often fail to apply rights consistently. Between October 7, 2023, and March 16, 2026, community-based tracking by Michael Teper, president of the Canadian Antisemitism Education Foundation, identified approximately 100 cases in Toronto alone connected to anti-Israel protests and alleged online hate. As of the latter date, charges had reportedly been withdrawn in nearly half of the tracked cases, while some matters had been resolved through peace bonds or diversionary measures (Canadian Antisemitism Education Foundation 2026). In some instances, prosecutors have not recognized and pursued charges for the hate dimensions of their cases.
The outcomes of many bail applications raise parallel concerns: in May 2026, an 18 year old charged with two suspected hate-motivated assaults with a weapon after a shooting incident outside a Toronto synagogue was released on $2,000 bail, a decision widely criticized as failing to reflect the gravity of the alleged offences (McDonald 2026). Compounding these challenges is a perceived absence of clear political direction. Police and prosecutors operate within a public climate shaped by elected officials. When political leaders limit their response to condemnatory statements without clearly and publicly instructing law enforcement to bring the full force of the law to bear against antisemitism, frontline officers may reasonably believe that the institutional backing for robust enforcement is uncertain at best.[1] Ontario’s Inspector General of Policing has called for stronger police-board oversight, supervisory scrutiny, training, and consistent enforcement practices in response to rising antisemitic incidents, illustrating the role that governance and institutional direction play in frontline policing (Police Governance Ontario 2026).
Although victims of antisemitism have avenues for redress — including victim and community impact statements, and private prosecutions when police are reluctant to act — these mechanisms are often inadequate in practice. Complaints are frequently minimized, investigative and prosecutorial processes are often opaque and protracted, and fear of retaliation can deter victims from pursuing remedies.
In any of its many forms, antisemitism is an attack on Canada’s principles of equality, dignity, and the security of our democracy. Responding effectively requires a coordinated and proactive application of the laws already in place. Greater resolve across law enforcement, government, workplaces, universities, and private platforms is urgently needed to protect Jewish Canadians, uphold the rule of law, and preserve the integrity of Canada’s democratic society.
Antisemitism as a criminal offence
Antisemitism in hate speech laws
Existing offences in the Criminal Code cover the most common criminal activities targeting the Jewish community. In the context of hate speech or propaganda, the Code expressly prohibits advocating genocide, wilful promotion of hatred against an identifiable group (including a newly enacted offence of wilfully promoting such hatred through the public display of certain symbols), public incitement of hatred likely to lead to a breach of the peace, and wilful promotion of antisemitism through the denial or minimization of the Holocaust (Criminal Code, RSC 1985, c C-46, as amended, ss. 318–19).These provisions establish that antisemitic hate speech and symbols are not tolerated in Canadian law.
The landmark conviction of James Keegstra, an Alberta high school teacher who promoted Jew-hatred by espousing Holocaust denialism in his classes, established that wilful promotion of hatred is not protected under freedom of expression (R. v. Keegstra, 1996 1 SCR 458). In the decision, the Court also explained the dangers of hate speech in marginalizing targeted communities and in drawing adherents, including those who may go on to act violently. Indeed, we know that hate manifestos have inspired and incited terror activities around the world. One such case is that of Matthew Althorpe, who pleaded guilty to terrorism-related offences for producing and disseminating neo-Nazi propaganda that promoted hatred and inspired violence, and was sentenced to 20 years’ imprisonment (R. v. Althorpe, 2026 ONSC 1820).
Hate-motivated crimes against Jewish communities
In this century, Jewish individuals, institutions, and businesses have been increasingly victimized by vandalism, intimidation, harassment, and arson. When these crimes are motivated in whole or in part by bias, prejudice, or hatred against Jews or Israelis, this constitutes an aggravating circumstance that exposes the perpetrators to greater sentences that emphasize deterrence and denunciation. Vandalism, disruption, and violence against religious institutions are considered more serious when aimed at emotionally harming the congregation. For example, in a 2001 case involving an arson attack at a synagogue in Edmonton, the judge imposed a harsher sentence precisely because the act was motivated by hate and religious intimidation (R. v. Sandouga, 2002 ABCA 196). As well, Parliament has recently created a new hate crime that converts every conventional offence into a hate crime, with enhanced penalties, if proven to be motivated by hatred (Combatting Hate Act, SC 2026, c 15).
Participants in unlawful assemblies and riots, and those wearing disguises during such events or while intending to commit indictable offences such as wilful promotion of hatred, are criminally accountable for their actions. For example, Canadian law makes every participant in a gathering of three or more people for a common purpose culpable when they assemble in a manner or conduct themselves to cause persons in the neighbourhood to reasonably fear they will disturb the peace tumultuously or provoke others to do so. Laying charges for crimes of intimidation that involve blocking roads or interfering with the lawful use and enjoyment of property by others (mischief) represent additional important tools available to law enforcement. In R v. Thomas, the court affirmed that political grievances do not justify unlawful protest tactics, such as blocking roadways, even when framed as legitimate dissent (R. v. Thomas (1971), 2 C.C.C. (2d) 514 (B.C. Co. Ct.). This principle was recently vindicated by the Ontario Court of Appeal in a case involving intimidation for unlawfully obstructing Ottawa’s streets, where the court reversed an acquittal at trial and ordered a new sentencing hearing (R. v. King, 2026 ONCA 522). For Jewish Canadians, these protections matter because antisemitic demonstrations often deliberately blur the line between protest and intimidation and between constitutionally protected and hate speech.
The federal government’s new Combatting Hate Act is a response to the issue of rising hate crimes — particularly against Jewish communities and other vulnerable groups — and its passage is a welcome signal that the federal government is serious about confronting these challenges. While there were significant disagreements about the bill’s need and utility, the impetus for such legislation is arguably that our existing laws are not being adequately enforced and prosecuted.
Enforcement gaps and challenges
Police frequently underuse existing hate speech and even conventional criminal provisions due to evidentiary challenges, political sensitivity, or lack of training (Diab 2024). The result is that antisemitic incidents that could be prosecuted are too often dismissed or minimized.
The Criminal Code allows the warranted seizure of hate propaganda even without conviction, (Criminal Code, RSC 1985, c C-46, s.320) and provincial trespass and municipal bylaws can also provide effective remedies. Yet such tools are rarely applied systematically to antisemitic incidents, leaving many communities unsupported as they cope with repeated harassment.
Although the same hate speech laws apply online, enforcement in that milieu faces unique challenges. They include preserving digital evidence before it is erased, identifying anonymous offenders, and balancing safety with privacy rights. Police can issue preservation demands to require an internet service provider (ISP) to freeze data for 21 days (Criminal Code, RSC 1985, c C-46, s.487.013) and can use production orders to reveal subscriber information (Criminal Code, RSC 1985, c C-46, s487.014-487.018). In R v. Spencer, however, the Supreme Court ruled that warrantless ISP disclosures violate privacy rights, requiring judicial authorization (R. v. Spencer, 2014 2 SCR 212). While these safeguards are essential, they have also slowed investigations into antisemitic propaganda and pro-terrorist content.
Collaboration with social media platforms is critical. While Canadian law does not currently hold platforms legally responsible for user-generated content, companies like Facebook, YouTube, and TikTok voluntarily prohibit hate speech (Facebook Undated; TikTok Undated; YouTube Undated), violent threats, and terrorist propaganda. What counts as hate speech on these platforms, however, is defined and interpreted by the companies themselves, not by the Criminal Code’s hate propaganda provisions or the courts, which leaves enforcement inconsistent and unaccountable. Some antisemitic content that plainly breaches a platform’s stated policy nonetheless remains up, often because it is dressed in coded language that moderators do not catch. Compounding this issue, rapid content takedowns can erase evidence before police intervene, and the growing migration to lesser-regulated platforms makes enforcement increasingly difficult.
In future, Canada should fully use all available criminal prosecution tools as well as local laws, strengthen collaboration between the RCMP and local police in investigating serious crimes, and build strong public-private partnerships to combat hate speech, all while safeguarding constitutional protections for freedom of expression and privacy rights.
Terrorism and antisemitic violence
Canada’s Anti-Terrorism Act, introduced in the wake of the 9/11 terror attacks on the United States, imposed harsher sentences for terrorism and expanded the power of police to investigate such acts. The act’s provisions are particularly relevant to efforts to combat some types of antisemitic violence, including support for terrorist groups such as Hamas (Anti-Terrorism Act, SC 200).
The Anti-Terrorism Act, integrated into Canada’s Criminal Code, aims at preventing and punishing terrorist activities, which it defines as including certain criminal activities committed for a political, religious, or ideological purpose. The federal government maintains a list of designated terrorist organizations, including al-Qaeda, ISIS, Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, Samidoun, and Proud Boys. Providing financing and other assistance to such groups, or participating in their activities, even short of committing an attack, is punishable by a range of maximum penalties from 10 years to life imprisonment. Because terrorism poses a serious threat, bail and sentencing thresholds are high (Criminal Code, RSC 1985, c C-46, ss. 515(6) and 83.26). Police may also use more expansive investigative powers when addressing terrorist cases, such as intercepting private communications without proving they are a last resort, delaying notification of monitoring, and accessing DNA warrants (Criminal Code, RSC 1985, c C-46, ss. 487.04 and 487.051).
However, despite these powerful tools, lack of coordination between the RCMP and local police can undermine enforcement efforts. The RCMP typically lead terrorist investigations, while local police handle related hate crime offences. This split can leave antisemitic threats under-addressed unless local services are trained to recognize when crimes intersect with terrorism. The federal government, alongside provincial and local municipal policing partners, have begun to recognize the problem and have made commitments to create memoranda of understanding in the 2025 announcement of a pair of reform bills: Bill C-2 Strong Borders Act and Bill C-14 Bail and Sentencing Reform Act. Recently, a joint investigation by the RCMP-led INSET (Integrated National Security Enforcement Team) unit and the Toronto Police Service led to a person being charged with participating in or contributing to terrorist activities associated with Hamas, arising out of the accused’s protest activities. The matter has yet to be heard. Several community organizations and the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police are also calling for the creation of a new offence focusing on the wilful promotion of terrorist groups and their activities in order to address an existing gap in anti-terrorism legislation (Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, 2026).
Some, like Macdonald-Laurier Institute Senior Fellow Sheryl Saperia and her co-author, former RCMP assistant commissioner Ches W. Parsons, have argued that today’s antisemitic violence is “armed, patterned and purposeful” and therefore better viewed as terrorism rather than localized hate crimes. Saperia and Parsons show that a terrorism charge carries important implications: “Hate crime prosecutions, however important, address individual acts, while terrorism investigations engage Canada’s national security architecture — including specialized RCMP units and CSIS, which have the tools needed to trace ideological networks, foreign influence and patterns of radicalization. In a geopolitical environment shaped by the ongoing conflict involving Iran and its regional proxies — groups with a documented interest in destabilizing diaspora Jewish communities in the West — that broader lens is essential” (Saperia and Parsons 2026).
Justice for victims of antisemitism
Justice also requires that Jewish Canadians have reliable avenues for recognition, protection, and redress if they are a victim of antisemitism. In November 2025, masked activists allegedly forced their way into a Toronto venue where a student group had invited Israeli military veterans to speak. The protesters drilled through a glass door while students inside were told to hide and barricaded the doors with chairs. One of the veterans was cut by the shattered glass, and five people were later arrested and charged with forcible entry and unlawful assembly (Direnfeld 2026; Direnfeld and Sandler 2026; Toronto Police Service 2026; Bond and Marchesan 2025). Months earlier at the University of Calgary, Jewish students barricaded themselves inside a room during a campus event after protesters tried to storm in. The protesters later harassed attendees as they left (Singh 2024). In February 2024, 14 members of the Public Service Alliance of Canada filed human rights complaints alleging their own union had fostered a culture of discrimination and harassment against Jewish members (Wilson 2024). These episodes are forcing victims to navigate multiple systems (criminal, civil, human rights, and employment) to defend their rights. These systems are complex, inconsistent, and often reluctant to confront antisemitism directly.
Rights and remedies in the criminal justice system
Protection and redress for victims are essential components of criminal justice. Victims have the right to testimonial aid, to be informed of case developments, and to provide input at sentencing. Victim and community impact statements allow courts to weigh both individual and collective harms. For Jewish communities, community impact statements (CIS) have been important in showing how antisemitic hate crimes target congregations and communities, not just individuals. Since hate speech often lacks a direct, individual victim, a CIS from religious institutions, advocacy groups, or community organizations can serve as evidence of harm (Criminal Code, RSC 1985, c C-46, s.722.2 (1)). In many high-profile antisemitism hate crime trials, including the prosecution of the editor of the antisemitic and misogynistic publication Your Ward News (R. v. Sears, 2019, ONCJ 607), CIS submissions from Jewish community leaders and advocates have given context to the impact such actions have on the community.
When police fail to lay charges, victims may gather evidence and initiate private prosecutions. A pre-enquête hearing determines whether there is sufficient ground for a case, thereby filtering out frivolous or malicious attempts to prosecute. If approved, the Crown may choose to take over the prosecution (Ontario Ministry of the Attorney General 2024).
The Canadian government has been inconsistent in enforcing victims’ rights and neglectful in addressing antisemitism. Reports from the Federal Ombudsperson for Victims of Crimes contain no mention of the October 7 attack and no discussion of the subsequent rise in antisemitic hate crimes (Office of the Federal Ombudsperson for Victims of Crime 2024). Without dedicated resources, meaningful consultation with Jewish communities, and stronger enforcement, victims’ rights risk remaining more symbolic than substantive.
Antisemitism in workplaces and labour relations
Under Canadian law, employers are obligated to protect employees from antisemitic abuse and to provide redress when they fail to do so.
Failure to comply with the Occupational Health and Safety Act (RSO 1990, c O.1) and provincial human rights codes (e.g. Human Rights Code, RSO 1990, c H.19) can leave employers liable to costly lawsuits. Employers can discipline and terminate non-unionized employees after a single incident of antisemitic abuse, and even off-duty conduct can justify dismissal if it damages the employer’s reputation. This is especially relevant in the digital era.
Unionized workplaces pose additional challenges. While employers have the same obligation to protect employees, they must document incidents thoroughly to avoid successful grievances by the disciplined employee. Victims may bring complaints to human rights tribunals or, in some cases, sue for constructive dismissal. Yet employees who rely on unions to represent them often face obstacles: unions may be unresponsive or hostile when antisemitism is involved. Employees who depend on their union to pursue legal action can encounter wilful blindness from the very body meant to represent them. The struggle for fair representation and legal redress can be arduous. An employee who finds their union unresponsive to antisemitic abuse — or even complicit in it — can file a duty of fair representation complaint with the relevant labour relations board, though such complaints rarely succeed. Alternatively, members can build support to decertify their local branch, which, if successful, would free them to pursue legal action independently, or they could run for union office to change its policies from within.
Antisemitism in universities and education
Universities and colleges have become flashpoints for antisemitism, particularly since October 7, 2023. Jewish students and staff are frequently blamed for the actions of the Israeli government, pressured to adopt anti-Israel positions, or excluded from academic opportunities unless they align with specific political agendas. Universities have largely failed to protect their members from this hostile environment (Benotto and Finley 2026; Diab 2024; Jedwab and Holly 2026).
Institutions are bound by anti-discrimination obligations but enforcement is weak. Under Ontario’s Bill 166, the Strengthening Accountability and Student Supports Act, universities must streamline and publish anti-discrimination policies and review them every five years. Harassment and discrimination policies are meant to address prejudiced behaviour, and complaints can be filed under a harassment and discrimination policy or a student code of conduct (Strengthening Accountability and Student Supports Act, 2024, SO 2024, c 11). Such policies address hostile behaviour motivated by prejudice against a person’s ethnicity, race, religion, gender, sexuality, or socio-economic status, with the goal of preserving inclusivity on campus. A successful complaint can lead to disciplinary measures, including termination of the perpetrator, which validates the victim’s experience and deters future misconduct. Student codes of conduct govern a broader range of behaviour, including academic integrity, respect for others, and compliance with laws. These on-campus processes are generally shorter than going through the legal system, and may allow mediation, which can foster reconciliation. Yet in practice, many Jewish students avoid or abandon formal complaints because the reporting procedures are complex, they fear retaliation and stigmatization, or they worry that disclosure will expose them to further harassment, bullying, or social isolation (Association des Médecins Juifs du Québec 2025; Brym 2025). They also express concern that, all too often, such complaints are too easily minimized or dismissed on technical grounds, when rooted in antisemitism.
Reported shortcomings in the justice system, workplaces, and universities have contributed to fear and distrust among Jewish Canadians. Federal studies have documented barriers to reporting hate crimes, distrust of authorities, inconsistent services for victims, fear of retaliation, and concern that victims will be dismissed or misunderstood. Parliamentary evidence has likewise documented antisemitism and inadequate institutional responses in Canadian workplaces and universities (Office of the Federal Ombudsperson for Victims of Crime 2024; Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights 2026). Consistent implementation of victims’ rights, together with enforceable responsibilities for employers and educational institutions, is essential to bridge the gap between formal rights and effective protection (Office of the Federal Ombudsperson for Victims of Crime 2026; Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights 2026).
Alternative legal remedies against antisemitism
Criminal prosecution demands high standards of proof and often comes only after harm has occurred, but there are other areas of the law that can provide more flexible, preventive tools for addressing antisemitism. Immigration, investment oversight, charity regulation, and defamation law each offer additional avenues for disrupting antisemitic activity in Canada.
Immigration and inadmissibility
Many antisemitic extremists are not Canadian citizens, making immigration law a crucial tool for barring their entry or removing them from the country. Foreign governments and transnational extremist networks have also been accused of financing, coordinating, or amplifying antisemitic activity in Canada (Bell 2024; Bell 2025; Diab 2024). A person may be deemed inadmissible if they have committed a serious offence in Canada or abroad, are sanctioned, belong to a terrorist organization, or have violated entry terms.
Certain hate-motivated offences, especially terrorism, can trigger automatic criminal inadmissibility. Even repeated convictions for “lesser” crimes such as harassment, intimidation, defamatory libel, or Holocaust denial, can justify loss of status or permanent exclusion from Canada (Immigration and Refugee Protection Act 2001 s. 36). Unlike the criminal evidentiary standard of “beyond a reasonable doubt,” immigration authorities can determine immigration application admissibility on “reasonable grounds to believe,” allowing swifter intervention before further harm occurs (Immigration and Refugee Protection Act 2001 s. 33).
Visa holders who misuse their time staying in Canada — for instance, by producing antisemitic and hateful extremist propaganda — may lose their status. Those sanctioned under the United Nations Act, the Special Economic Measures Act, or the Justice for Victims of Corrupt Foreign Officials Act (the Sergei Magnitsky Law) are likewise barred (Immigration and Refugee Protection Act 2001 s. 35.1 (1)). This should mean that extremists — those who have committed violence or joined sanctioned terrorist organizations — can be kept out (Khan v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2017 FC 397 at para 33). Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada should prioritize screening for extremist activities inside and outside Canada as part of a broader effort to protect Canadians from repeated intimidation and violence, including antisemitic activities.
Investment and terrorist financing
Financial oversight is another underused mechanism through which the government can curb antisemitism and extremism. Foreign-linked groups that advocate or engage in hatred or violence can exploit Canada’s financial channels to move money toward activities that target vulnerable communities. The 2024 listing of Samidoun, the Palestinian Prisoner Solidarity Network, as a terrorist entity, is a case in point. Canadian authorities stated that Samidoun had close links with and advanced the interests of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP), a listed terrorist entity. In a coordinated designation, US authorities described the Vancouver-based organization as a sham charity that operated as an international fundraiser and front for the PFLP (Public Safety Canada 2024; U.S. Department of the Treasury 2024). The group has been dissolved as a federally designated non-profit.
Existing Canadian tools to counter antisemitism and extremism include the Criminal Code’s terrorist-financing provisions, which prohibit collecting or providing property or financial services for terrorist activities or terrorist groups (Criminal Code, RSC 1985, c C-46, ss 83.02–83.03); mandatory reporting to FINTRAC of transactions reasonably suspected of being connected to terrorist-activity financing (FINTRAC 2025); and, separately, a national security review of foreign investments in Canadian businesses under the Investment Canada Act (Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada 2025). They all give the government levers it has been slow to pull.
The Investment Canada Act (1985) not only empowers the government to block foreign investments on national security grounds, but can also combat foreign terrorist financing in Canada (Investment Canada Act, RSC1985, c 28 (1st Sup)). To date, the act has been applied primarily to block investments deemed harmful to Canadian national interests from hostile foreign states, rather than from non-state terrorist organizations. But its national security review clause could also be used to block investment and dissolve entities tied to antisemitic extremist financing. The Foreign Investment Review and Economic Security Branch (FIRES) (Investment Canada Act, RSC1985, c 28 (1st Sup), s25.12) of the Ministry of Innovation, Science and Industry (ISED) collaborates closely with other relevant departments for the review and requests any necessary information, relying on sensitive intelligence that need not be disclosed publicly. This discretion gives the government wide latitude to stop terrorist financing without the burdens of criminal forfeiture proceedings. While the Investment Canada Act does not apply to charities, informal networks, and older entities, it remains a versatile and expedient way to suppress extremist business fronts.
Charities and non-profit oversight
Non-profit organizations (NPOs) and charities are also vulnerable to abuse. They operate under a patchwork of legislation and regulations, including tax, corporate, trust, and criminal law, as well as the common law of charities. The complexity and opacity of this regulatory framework have often left NPOs with foreign operations or religious missions entangled in lengthy investigations, raising concerns about the neutrality of regulators.
Registered charities enjoy two tax advantages: exemption from income tax and the ability to issue receipts to donors. Registering as an NPO or a charity comes with obligations, including limits on activities (such as refraining from certain commercial operations, and from supporting or opposing political parties and candidates) and strict reporting and financial-accountability requirements (Income Tax Act, RSC 1985, c 1 (5th Supp) [ITA]). Charities, whose purposes fall under one of four heads, “the relief of poverty, the advancement of education, the advancement of religion, and other purposes beneficial to the community, not falling under any of the preceding heads,” are subject to stricter regulation than NPOs (Commissioners for Special Purposes of the Income Tax v Pemsel, [1891] AC 531; reaffirmed in Vancouver Society of Immigrant and Visible Minority Women v Canada (MNR), [1999] 1 SCR 10). A charity that funds a non-qualified donee must structure the arrangement in one of two ways: either use the organization as an intermediary to carry out the charity’s own activities, in which case the charity must exercise direction and control over the activities and its resources; or it may make a qualifying disbursement that meets the ITA’s requirements and the CRA’s accountability standards (Canada Revenue Agency 2023). The risk of funds being misappropriated for extremist purposes rises when a charity operates internationally or channels money through such partners. The CRA’s Review and Analysis Division (RAD), operating under the Income Tax Act and the Charities Registration (Security Information) Act, works to guard against the abuse of registered charities for terrorist financing (Charities Registration (Security Information) Act, SC 2001, c 41, s 113).
Though the body exists with the requisite power, the process of review is long and cumbersome, leaving it less effective than it could be. Streamlining the regulatory regime governing charities and NPOs to make it more centralized and transparent (for example, by developing consistent, evidence-based risk criteria, strengthening independent oversight, and publishing more aggregate information about audits and outcomes) would help organizations that represent minority communities or serve global clients feel more confident that political bias will not influence oversight.
Defamation law and SLAPP protections
Those expressing antisemitic views sometimes weaponize Canada’s defamation law to silence their critics. Existing laws do not clearly shield anti-extremist communications from strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPPs), meaning suits brought not to win but to intimidate critics into silence through costly litigation. Because defamation law protects individuals rather than groups, those fighting antisemitism cannot bring collective actions against a group even when entire communities are harmed. Courts do recognize defences such as truth, fair comment, and qualified privilege, but outcomes remain unpredictable. This legal uncertainty forces advocates against discrimination to self-censor or expend resources on legal defense instead of advocacy.
Ontario and British Columbia have adopted anti-SLAPP protections, which allow courts to dismiss lawsuits that target public-interest expression (Courts of Justice Act, RSO 1990, c C.43, s 137). To succeed, the defendant must first show that the lawsuit arises from an expression on a public matter. But these provisions remain limited: plaintiffs challenging acts of antisemitism can still proceed by arguing that reputational harm outweighs the public interest in protecting the expression. Courts weighing these two categorically different values pose the biggest challenge to the anti-SLAPP objective. Despite Supreme Court guidance (1704604 Ontario Ltd. v. Pointes Protection Association, 2020 2 SCR 587), legal outcomes remain highly unpredictable. Although an anti-SLAPP motion is a potential way to shield free public debate, it falls short of protecting anti-extremist advocates from malicious defamation suits.
Recommendations
Canadian law provides a robust framework to confront antisemitism, yet the protections it promises are hindered by inconsistent enforcement, institutional neglect, lack of coordination, and the absence of political will. Therefore, Canadian institutions must:
Enforce criminal law more effectively
- Fully apply existing Criminal Code provisions on hate propaganda, hate-motivated crimes, and terrorism, and also deploy a range of conventional criminal law measures.
- Improve officer and prosecutorial training, digital literacy, and coordination between local police and the RCMP.
Strengthen victims’ rights
- Ensure consistent use of testimonial aids (such as screens to shield witnesses, support persons, appointed counsel), robust use of statements from victims and communities about the impact of antisemitic crimes and greater information provided to complainants about ongoing cases, with opportunities for feedback.
- Expand public awareness and provide targeted resources for Jewish communities.
Hold workplaces and universities accountable
- Insist that workplaces and universities meet their obligations under labour law, occupational safety standards, and human rights codes to combat antisemitism.
- Ensure that the application of anti-discrimination policies in universities and unions is transparent and fair.
Disrupt extremist financing and networks
- Use Canada’s immigration laws to deny entry to, and remove, foreign nationals who are inadmissible on grounds of security, human or international rights violations, serious criminality, or who are engaging in, inciting, or supporting hatred, terrorism, or violence against identifiable groups.
- Use the Investment Canada Act and charity oversight more actively to block extremist funding.
Safeguard free expression and advocacy
- Clarify defamation and anti-SLAPP protections so advocates can challenge antisemitism and discrimination without fear of lawsuits.
Conclusion
Since the October 7 terrorist attacks in Israel, Jewish Canadians have faced a surge of antisemitic rhetoric, harassment, and violence. Viewpoints that were once considered fringe have become mainstream and now appear everywhere from workplaces and universities to digital platforms and public demonstrations. This should alarm every Canadian. A society that cannot keep one of its communities safe in its classrooms, its workplaces, and on its streets has failed in its basic obligations. Where antisemitism takes hold, the rule of law, public safety, and social trust erode for everyone.
Canada is not without recourse. It has a wide range of existing criminal, civil, labour, immigration, investment, and international legal tools to deter, punish, and prevent antisemitism. The challenge Canada faces is to summon the will to use the powers we have consistently and without exception for communities or causes that make enforcement politically uncomfortable. Where institutions have been neglectful, renewed commitment and accountability are essential. Where coordination between federal, provincial, municipal, and private bodies has faltered, all levels of government must ensure that they build stronger partnerships.
Peace, order, and good government is the promise upon which this country was founded. It is not a slogan but an obligation, and it is measured precisely in moments like this one, when a community is under sustained pressure and the state must decide whether its guarantees are real. Protecting Jewish Canadians is not a special accommodation. It is the protection every Canadian is owed.
The question is not whether Canada has the tools to fight antisemitism, but whether it has the will to use them.
About the authors
Peter Copeland is acting director of Domestic Policy at the Macdonald-Laurier Institute.
Mark Sandler is the chair of the Alliance of Canadians Combatting Antisemitism.
Sheryl Saperia is a senior fellow at the Macdonald-Laurier Institute and CEO of Pearl Strategic Counsel.
References
Association des Médecins Juifs du Québec. 2025. Brief Submitted to the Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights Study on Antisemitism in Canada. Association des Médecins Juifs du Québec, November 16. Available at https://sencanada.ca/Content/Sen/Committee/451/RIDR/briefs/AMJQ_e.pdf.
Bell, Stewart. 2024. “Extremist Attack on Jewish Community ‘Realistic Possibility,’ Intelligence Report Says.” Global News, October 3. Available at https://globalnews.ca/news/10779572/attack-jewish-community-realistic-possibility-intelligence-report/.
Bell, Stewart. 2025. “Toronto Hate Crime Suspect Denied Refugee Status in 2018.” Global News, December 30. Available at https://globalnews.ca/news/11592707/osman-azizov-refugee-claim-refused-hate-extremism/.
Benotto, Mary Lou, and Margot Finley. 2026. “Toronto Metropolitan University External Review 2025–2026: Report.” Toronto: Toronto Metropolitan University, August 14. Available at https://www.torontomu.ca/content/dam/external-review/reports/external-review-report.pdf.
Bond, Meredith, and John Marchesan. 2025. “5 Arrests, 1 Injured after Demonstrators Force Their Way into Downtown Building: Police.” CityNews Toronto, November 5. Available at https://toronto.citynews.ca/2025/11/05/multiple-arrests-made-after-group-of-demonstrators-force-their-way-into-building-downtown/.
Brym, Robert. 2025. Antisemitism in Ontario’s K–12 Schools. Government of Canada, Office of the Special Envoy on Preserving Holocaust Remembrance and Combatting Antisemitism. Available at https://www.canada.ca/en/canadian-heritage/services/canada-holocaust/antisemitism/antisemitism-ontario-schools.html.
Canada. 2025. “Currently Listed Entities.” Government of Canada, February 20. Available at https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/ntnl-scrt/cntr-trrrsm/lstd-ntts/crrnt-lstd-ntts-en.aspx.
Canada Industrial Relations Board. Undated. “Labour Relations – Duty of Fair Representation.” Canada Industrial Relations Board. Available at https://cirb-ccri.gc.ca/en/about-appeals-applications-complaints/labour-relations-duty-fair.
Canada Revenue Agency. 2023. Registered Charities Making Grants to Non-Qualified Donees. Guidance CG-032. Government of Canada. Available at https://www.canada.ca/en/revenue-agency/services/charities-giving/charities/policies-guidance/charities-making-grants-non-qualified-donees.html.
Canadian Antisemitism Education Foundation. 2026. Perceived Injustice in Canada’s Legal System. CAEF Special Bulletin, March 16. Canadian Antisemitism Education Foundation. Available at https://www.caef.ca/post/perceived-injustice-in-canada-s-legal-system-caef-special-bulletin-mar-16-2026.
Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police. 2026. Submission to the Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights: Bill C-9: Combatting Hate Act. Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, May 20. Available at https://www.cacp.ca/_Library/Position_Statements/CACP_submission_-_Bill_C-9_-_Combatting_Hate_Act_-_2026-05-20.pdf.
Diab, Lena Metlege (chair). 2024. Heightened Antisemitism in Canada and How to Confront It: Report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. Report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights; 27th report, 44th Parliament, 1st Session, 11. House of Commons, Canada, December 2024. Available at https://www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Committee/441/JUST/Reports/RP13248912/justrp27/justrp27-e.pdf.
Direnfeld, Rochelle. 2026. “Ontario Court of Appeal Interprets the Crime of Intimidation – How This Is Relevant to Anti-Israel Protest Activities.” Alliance of Canadians Combatting Antisemitism, July 23. Available at https://www.alcca.ca/post/ontario-court-of-appeal-interprets-the-crime-of-intimidation-relevant-to-anti-israel-protests.
Direnfeld, Rochelle, and Mark Sandler. 2026. “Hate Crime & Legal Update: Bathurst–Sheppard Arrest, Terrorism Sentencing, and Antisemitic Threat Cases.” Alliance of Canadians Combatting Antisemitism, April 13. Available at https://www.alcca.ca/post/hate-crime-legal-update-bathurst-sheppard-arrest-terrorism-case-antisemitic-threats.
Facebook, Meta Business Help Center. Undated. “Hateful Conduct: Publisher and Creator Guidelines.” Meta. Available at https://www.facebook.com/business/help/170857687153963.
Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada (FINTRAC). 2025. “Reporting Suspicious Transactions to FINTRAC.” Government of Canada, May 22. Available at https://fintrac-canafe.canada.ca/guidance-directives/transaction-operation/str-dod/str-dod-eng.
Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada. 2025. “What Is the Investment Canada Act?” Government of Canada. Available at https://ised-isde.canada.ca/site/investment-canada-act/en/what-investment-canada-act.
Jedwab, Jack, and Paul Holley. 2026. “Campus Antisemitism and Student Experiences (CASE): A National Report on the State of Antisemitism at Canadian Postsecondary Institutions.” Report commissioned by the Government of Canada and produced by the Association for Canadian Studies and the Metropolis Institute, August. Available at https://www.canada.ca/en/canadian-heritage/services/canada-holocaust/antisemitism/campus-antisemitism-student-experiences.html.
McDonald, Catherine. 2026. “Teen Accused of Firing at 3 People Outside Synagogue with Replica Gun Granted Bail.” Global News, May 12. Available at https://globalnews.ca/news/11845058/teen-accused-of-firing-at-3-people-outside-synagogue-with-replica-gun-granted-bail/.
News Staff. 2026. “Additional Charges, Including ‘Public Incitement of Hatred,’ Laid in Downtown Protest of TMU Student Event in 2025.” CityNews Toronto, May 1. Available at https://toronto.citynews.ca/2026/05/01/toronto-tmu-protest-student-event-additional-charges/.
Office of the Federal Ombudsperson for Victims of Crime. 2024. Strengthening Access to Justice for Victims of Hate Crime in Canada. Government of Canada. Available at https://www.canada.ca/en/office-federal-ombudsperson-victims-crime/publications/specialreports-rapportsspeciaux/hatecrimecrimehaineux.html.
Office of the Federal Ombudsperson for Victims of Crime. 2026. “From Promises to Practice.” January 12. Government of Canada. Available at: https://www.canada.ca/en/office-federal-ombudsperson-victims-crime/publications/infographic-infographie/20260112.html.
Ontario, Ministry of the Attorney General (Ontario). 2024. Crown Prosecution Manual. Government of Ontario, January 31. Available at https://www.ontario.ca/document/crown-prosecution-manual.
Police Governance Ontario. 2026. “Ontario Inspector General of Policing Issues First-Ever Notice to Fortify Police Response to Rising Antisemitic and Hate-Motivated Incidents.” Press Release, July 14. Police Governance Ontario. Available at: https://www.iopontario.ca/en/ontario-inspector-general-policing-issues-first-ever-notice-fortify-police-response-rising.
Public Safety Canada. 2024. “Government of Canada Lists Samidoun as a Terrorist Entity.” News release, October 15. Government of Canada. Available at https://www.canada.ca/en/public-safety-canada/news/2024/10/government-of-canada-lists-samidoun-as-a-terrorist-entity.html.
Sandler, Mark. 2025. Written Submissions by Mark Sandler on Bill C-9. Submission to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. Available at https://www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Committee/451/JUST/Brief/BR13670357/br-external/SandlerMark-067-251014-013-Combined-e.pdf.
Saperia, Sheryl, and Ches W. Parsons. 2026. “Opinion: This Is Terrorism.” National Post, March 18. Available at https://nationalpost.com/opinion/this-is-terrorism.
Singh, Daman. 2024. “Pro-Palestinian Groups Protest Israeli Speaker Eylon Levy at the University of Calgary.” The Gauntlet, November 1. Available at https://thegauntlet.ca/2024/11/01/pro-palestinian-groups-protest-israel-speaker-eylon-levi-at-the-university-of-calgary/.
Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights. 2026. Standing United Against Antisemitism: Protecting Communities and Strengthening Canadian Democracy. Senate of Canada. Available at https://sencanada.ca/en/info-page/parl-45-1/ridr-antisemitism-in-canada/.
TikTok. Undated. “Hate Speech and Hateful Behavior.” Community Guidelines: Safety and Civility. TikTok, September 13, 2025. Available at: https://www.tiktok.com/community-guidelines/en/safety-civility/.
U.S. Department of the Treasury. 2024. “United States and Canada Target Key International Fundraiser for Foreign Terrorist Organization PFLP.” United States Department of the Treasury, October 15. Available at https://home.treasury.gov/news/press-releases/jy2646.
Wilson, Jim. 2024. “PSAC Faces Complaints of Discrimination, Harassment from Jewish Members.” Human Resources Director Canada, February 12. Available at https://www.hcamag.com/ca/specialization/employment-law/psac-faces-complaints-of-discrimination-harassment-from-jewish-members/476771.
YouTube. Undated. “Hate Speech Policy.” YouTube Community Guidelines. YouTube. Available at https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2801939.
Legislation and Case Law
1704604 Ontario Ltd. v. Pointes Protection Association, [2020] 2 SCR 587. Supreme Court of Canada. Available at https://decisions.scc-csc.ca/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/18458/index.do.
Anti-Terrorism Act (S.C. 2001, c. 41). Available at https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/A-11.7/index.html.
Bill C-14 [Bail and Sentencing Reform Act]: An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Youth Criminal Justice Act and the National Defence Act (bail and sentencing). 45th Parliament, 1st session. Parliament of Canada. Available at https://www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en/bill/45-1/c-14.
Bill C-2 [Strong Borders Act]: An Act respecting certain measures relating to the security of the border between Canada and the United States and respecting other related security measures. 45th Parl., 1st sess., first reading June 3, 2025. Canada, House of Commons. Available at https://www.parl.ca/LegisInfo/en/bill/45-1/C-2.
Canada. Parliament. House of Commons. Bill C-48, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (bail reform). 44th Parl., 1st sess. S.C. 2023, c. 30. Royal Assent December 5, 2023. Available at https://www.parl.ca/LegisInfo/en/bill/44-1/C-48.
Charities Registration (Security Information) Act (SC 2001, c. 41, s 113). Available at https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-27.55/FullText.html.
Combatting Hate Act (S.C. 2026, c 15). An Act to amend the Criminal Code (hate propaganda, hate crime and access to religious or cultural places). First Session, Forty-fifth Parliament, 3–4 Charles III, 2025-2026. Available at https://www.parl.ca/Content/Bills/451/Government/C-9/C-9_4/C-9_4.PDF.
Commissioners for Special Purposes of the Income Tax v Pemsel, [1891] AC 531. Available at https://www.pemselfoundation.org/about-us/the-pemsel-case-foundation/.
Courts of Justice Act (R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43). Court of Ontario. Available at https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90c43.
Criminal Code (R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46). Government of Canada. Available at https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-46/ .
Human Rights Code (R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19). Court of Ontario. Available at https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90h19.
Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (S.C. 2001, c. 27). Government of Canada. Available at https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/i-2.5/.
Income Tax Act (R.S.C. 1985, c. 1 (5th Supp.)). Government of Canada. Available at https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/i-3.3/.
Investment Canada Act (R.S.C. 1985, c. 28 ((1st Supp.)). Government of Canada. Available at https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/i-21.8/.
Justice for Victims of Corrupt Foreign Officials Act (Sergei Magnitsky Law) (S.C. 2017, c. 21). Government of Canada. Available at https://laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/j-2.3/.
Khan v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2017 FC 397 (CanLII). Federal Court. Available at https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2017/2017fc397/2017fc397.html.
Occupational Health and Safety Act (R.S.O. 1990, c. O.1). Court of Ontario. Available at https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90o01.
- v. Althorpe, 2026 ONSC 1820 (CanLII). Ontario Superior Court of Justice. Available at https://canlii.ca/t/kk4j0.
- v. Keegstra, [1996] 1 SCR 458, 1996 CanLII 221 (SCC). Available at https://canlii.ca/t/1frd0.
- v. King, 2026 ONCA 522 (CanLII). Available at https://canlii.ca/t/km4fh.
- v. Sandouga, [2002] ABCA 196. Alberta Court of Appeal. Available at https://canlii.ca/t/5jrm.
- v. Sears, [2019] ONCJ 607 (CanLII). Ontario Court of Justice. Available at https://canlii.ca/t/j29f2.
- v. Spencer, [2014] 2 SCR 212, 2014 SCC 43 (CanLII). Available at https://canlii.ca/t/g7dzn.
- v. Thomas, [1971] 2 CCC (2d) 514. British Columbia County Court.
Special Economic Measures Act (S.C. 1992, c. 17). Government of Canada. Available at https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/s-14.5/index.html.
Strengthening Accountability and Student Supports Act, 2024 (S.O. 2024, c. 11 – Bill 166). Available at https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/s24011.
United Nations Act (R.S.C., 1985, c. U-2). Government of Canada. Available at https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/u-2/index.html.
Vancouver Society of Immigrant and Visible Minority Women v Canada (MNR), [1999] 1 SCR 10. Supreme Court of Canada. Available at https://decisions.scc-csc.ca/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/1676/index.do.
[1] Elected officials and police service boards cannot direct day-to-day decision-making by police, but can provide critically important policy direction.
