Summary#
Bill 16, the Sacred Spaces, Safe Places Act, 2025, would create a new Ontario law. Its stated goal is to protect access to religious institutions by protecting the safety, security, health and privacy of people seeking to enter them.
- It would automatically create an access zone for each religious institution: the property and the area within 150 metres of its boundaries.
- In a zone, it would prohibit listed conduct aimed at discouraging access, including advising or trying to persuade someone not to enter, persistent requests, certain repeated observation or following, physical interference, intimidation and threatening conduct.
- It would also prohibit repeatedly contacting someone by telephone, fax or electronic means to dissuade them from entering, after that person has asked for the communications to stop. This rule has no stated location limit.
- A person who breaks a prohibition could face a fine or imprisonment. Someone who suffers a loss could sue for damages, and the Superior Court of Justice could issue an injunction to stop a contravention.
- A police officer could arrest without a warrant if the officer has reasonable and probable grounds to believe a person has committed or is committing an offence. A person cannot be convicted unless they knew, or had been told before the conduct, where the relevant zone was.
What it means for you#
- People entering religious institutions: The bill would create a protected area around the property, without requiring the institution to apply for a zone.
- People in or near those areas: The listed conduct would be prohibited when done in a zone. The bill does not ban all speech or gatherings there; it prohibits specified conduct linked to discouraging access, as well as threatening conduct.
- People contacting someone remotely: Repeated calls, faxes or electronic messages to dissuade someone from entering would be prohibited after that person asks for the messages to stop.
- Police, courts and people accused of offences: Police would have the stated warrantless-arrest power, and courts could impose the listed penalties or grant an injunction. The notice rule limits when a person can be convicted.
- Religious institutions: The bill would not create a new institution or front-line service. It would establish zones around institutions covered by its definition, which includes churches, mosques, synagogues, temples and cemeteries.
Money#
No publicly available information on the bill’s expected costs or revenue.
- The bill sets fines of up to $5,000 for a first offence. For a second or later offence, the fine would be $1,000 to $10,000. Imprisonment could also be imposed.
- The bill does not state expected spending on enforcement, court proceedings or other implementation.
What is unclear#
- The bill does not define several terms used in the prohibitions, including “persistently,” “repeatedly,” “intimidate” and “threatening conduct.”
- It does not set out procedures for giving notice of zone boundaries, or explain how notice would be proved.
- It does not specify how the prohibitions would apply to situations where speech or conduct has more than one purpose.
- The available material does not explain how this law would interact with existing laws or protections for speech and assembly.
- The available material does not establish the current-law baseline for these activities.
Case for#
- The bill appears intended to address conduct that may make people feel unsafe or obstruct their access to religious institutions.
- Automatically setting zones would make the protected area clear in principle and would not depend on each institution applying for one.
- The notice limit could help prevent convictions when a person did not know, and had not been told, where a zone was.
- Damages and injunctions would give people who suffer loss, and applicants including the Attorney General, ways to seek a remedy beyond criminal penalties.
Case against#
- A fixed zone extending 150 metres from every covered property could restrict conduct across a wide area, including conduct near places that are not themselves part of the institution.
- Some prohibited terms are undefined. That could leave uncertainty about where ordinary persuasion, observation or repeated approaches cross the line into an offence.
- The bill does not set out exceptions or explain how to balance its access protections with speech and assembly in a zone.
- The bill creates enforcement powers and legal remedies but provides no cost estimate or details on implementation.