‘They think they can silence your speech’: Niagara Falls being taken to court over sign ban that led to women’s arrest

“We are fighting back against these municipal politicians because they think that they can silence your speech, control your expression, ignore your constitutional rights, and they believe that they will face zero consequences. They are wrong, and we are going to show them using this new fund.”

Christine Van Geyn, litigation director of the Canadian Constitution Foundation, did not hold back during a recent podcast, detailing the conduct of Niagara Falls officials and her organization’s new initiative to push back against out of control municipalities. 

A constitutional legal challenge against the City of Niagara Falls is now moving forward, following the June 17 arrest of three women during a silent protest at a City council meeting.

As reported by The Pointer, the protest was sparked by the refusal of Mayor Jim Diodati and officials to allow a delegation to speak about bill 9, a proposed piece of provincial legislation. During the meeting, the women held small paper signs in the public gallery—an act City officials claimed violated an internal policy banning signs in council chambers.

Diodati refused to begin the meeting while the signs were visible and ultimately called for police, resulting in the women’s arrest.

On July 9, the Canadian Constitution Foundation (CCF) announced it had signed a retainer with one of the arrested women, Lauren O’Connor, and confirmed it is proceeding with legal action against the City.

Based in Calgary, the CCF is a non-profit legal organization that advocates for individual freedoms, constitutional rights and the rule of law in Canada. It engages in strategic litigation and public education to defend civil liberties and limit government overreach, with a team of legal professionals that specialize in constitutional law.

During a recent episode of the CCF podcast, Not Reserving Judgement, Van Geyn and counsel Josh Dehaas discussed the Niagara Falls case and outlined potential legal arguments.

“This was really heavy-handed, completely outrageous,” Van Geyn said during the online discussion. “These women were not disruptive. They held small paper signs silently in their laps. That is their constitutionally guaranteed right.”

The legal challenge, which is currently being prepared but has yet to be filed, will be the inaugural case for the Municipal Censorship Defence Fund, a national initiative launched by the CCF to push back against what it describes as a growing wave of unconstitutional local policies.

The Fund is currently supported by a group of donors who are matching contributions dollar-for-dollar up to $50,000 until July 22.

Van Geyn points out that the legal challenge was not the CCF’s first option, the organization launched its advocacy by writing to the City, asking them to change the policy voluntarily. Instead of doing so, she notes the City commissioned a staff report that supports the decision of municipal officials to ban signs inside the council chambers, claiming the implementation of the decorum policy that led to the arrest of the three advocates was necessary to protect health and safety.

“Without these rules, decorum can be lost and when this happens, things can escalate so that it can create an unsafe situation. For example, if signs or other forms of communication were allowed unchecked, there is the potential for individuals to hold up signs saying Staff are stupid or incompetent, the Police are corrupt, or during a Diversity, Equity and Inclusion presentation on Pride month, individuals could hold signs and wear t-shirts demeaning gay relationships. This would create an unsafe situation and would be intimidating to the targeted individuals,” the report claims.

Authored by CAO Jason Burgess, City Solicitor Nidhi Punyarthi and City Clerk Bill Matson, it has been criticized by legal experts at the CCF, who say the overreach reflects a profound misunderstanding of fundamental constitutional principles.

“They wrote that protesting is not permitted inside courtrooms, council chambers, and public areas of government buildings. That’s just wrong on so many levels,” Van Geyn said during the CCF’s podcast.

“If the city solicitor wrote this part, I’m frankly disturbed because of how deeply it misunderstands our Constitution,” she added, explaining the significant difference between courtroom spaces where political neutrality must be preserved and “a democratic forum” like a council chamber. 

“A city council chamber is a quasi public civic space, and a blanket ban on signs without evidence of disruption could easily fail the Section 1 justification test under the Charter, especially where that expression is peaceful and it's relevant to the democratic and political process, as it was here,” she said. 

Municipalities “do not have constitutional standing. They are creatures of statute.”

She applied much of the same reasoning to the report's reference to signs being banned in Parliament.  

“You're not a courtroom, you're not Parliament, you're not the provincial legislature, you're a city council.” She points out that council chambers are civic spaces where peaceful political protest is both common and protected and cited the Ontario Superior Court case Gammie v. South Bruce Peninsula, which found a similar sign ban to be unconstitutional under Section 2(b) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The three women arrested at the recent council meeting were representing The Women of Ontario Say No (WOSN), an advocacy group pushing for stronger accountability measures for local elected officials facing serious charges. The protest was in response to the City’s refusal to hear a delegation from WOSN founder Emily McIntosh about the proposed bill 9 — The Municipal Accountability Act, which aims to establish clearer rules for the suspension or removal of council members facing criminal charges, such as harassment, domestic assault or intimate partner violence. If adopted, the bill would create clearer mechanisms for removing councillors found guilty of egregious misconduct and provisions to take leave while cases are being adjudicated, to protect the integrity of municipal governance and prevent any potential conflict from arising when council members accused of a serious act remain at the decision making table.

The proposed legislation would align municipal accountability with existing practices for other public service professionals, such as police officers, firefighters and teachers, who are typically removed provisionally from their duties pending the outcome of legal proceedings for criminal matters. 

The City Clerk claimed the proposed delegation regarding the bill would encroach into “ongoing legal proceedings” related to an assault charge against Councillor Mike Strange, and therefore refused McIntosh a chance to be included on the agenda, multiple times.

However, the Clerk, Mayor Diodati and other Niagara Falls officials who had claimed there could be no discussion during council that touched on the legal proceedings, ignored their own claim when Strange was allowed at a later meeting to speak directly to the criminal charge against him. Despite barring McIntosh and others from even remotely referencing anything that could be construed as connected to Strange’s alleged assault, he was allowed to use his position and influence to defend himself, telling those in attendance at the July 8 council meeting that “the truth will come out” in what was described as a “shocking display of total bias” by one resident at the meeting.

Residents have reached out to The Pointer questioning how McIntosh could have been barred from speaking even though she assured officials that she had no intention of mentioning the criminal case, while Strange was allowed to stand up in the public chamber and use his council privilege to express himself, claiming the criminal charge against him will be proven wrong. It appeared to be a  clear contradiction.    

Strange was charged with intimate partner assault after a May 3 incident when police reportedly found an injured woman when they responded to a call. Strange has denied the allegations which have not been proven in court.

Residents have also questioned why the signs held by women were not permitted in the public chamber, but Strange was free to express himself, using the same public space to fight his own crusade. 

 Three women, including Niagara Regional Councillor Haley Bateman, were arrested during a council meeting in June for holding signs with the words “Women of Ontario Say No”.

(Ed Smith/The Pointer files)

Six women silently held signs with the words “Women of Ontario Say No”. They refused to cover the signs when Mayor Diodati ordered them to do so. Police were called, and three women were arrested. After being escorted from City property they were released with no charges being laid.

According to the staff report on the matter, the silent holding of the small letter-size signs created “an unsafe, unwelcoming, undemocratic and uncivil situation in Council Chambers, a place where everyone should feel welcomed to express their view without fear of intimidation or bullying.”

The description was not what witnesses including The Pointer observed and was panned by CCF legal experts. 

“Women holding signs silently that say nothing even remotely offensive, they just want to express a political point of view, they're not disrupting anything. That's a threat that you need to call the police for?” CCF counsel Josh Dehaas asked. “Do our police have nothing better to do than that?”

The Niagara Falls case forms part of what the CCF identifies as a growing national trend of municipalities restricting expression through local bylaws and policies. 

The CCF released a comprehensive report, Canada's Most Censorious Bylaws, on June 5, 2025, which documents numerous examples of municipal overreach. The review outlines bylaws that restrict speech in streets and parks, on private property, by elected officials, and even during public delegations at council meetings.

The CCF criticizes municipalities for relying on “jurisdictional scans”, surveys of similar bylaws in other cities, instead of seeking genuine legal clarity. This practice, they argue, reflects poor staff preparation, where reports justify restrictive bylaws simply because “other municipalities are doing it,” rather than grounding them in constitutional principles or legal precedent.

“Just because everyone else is violating the Constitution doesn’t make it okay,” Van Geyn remarked during the podcast. 

According to CCF, despite legal warnings, the City of Niagara Falls has shown no signs of repealing the policy. Instead, a second staff report is being prepared, something CCF officials worry will double down on the City’s commitment to the sign ban. Consequently, the CCF has committed to pursuing a Rule 14 application for a declaration that the policy is unconstitutional.

“We are now working with one of the women who was involved in these protests and we are preparing an application for a declaration that the policy is unconstitutional,” Van Geyn explained to The Pointer. “We would be thrilled if the City voluntarily repeals the policy, and permits signs in council chambers, which is consistent with case law and the Section 2(b) Charter guarantee to free expression. If the City repealed the sign policy and allowed signs in chambers, we would not bring any application against them, saving scarce resources for everyone involved.”

The Niagara Falls case is shaping up to be a bellwether for municipalities across Canada now facing increased scrutiny. 

The Canadian Constitution Foundation and Lauren O’Connor, the resident at the centre of the legal action, have made it clear they are prepared to escalate the case if the City of Niagara Falls refuses to repeal the controversial policy at the centre of the legal challenge.

The Pointer reached out to CAO Jason Burgess and City Solicitor Nidhi Punyarthi for comment. No response was received.  

“I am doing this not solely for me, but for all of us who live in Canada whose right it is to be active participants within our municipalities,” O’Connor said. “We need to have a voice for change, and that voice should come from residents of municipalities.”

Email: [email protected]

At a time when vital public information is needed by everyone, The Pointer has taken down our paywall on all stories to ensure every resident of Brampton, Mississauga and Niagara has access to the facts. For those who are able, we encourage you to consider a subscription. This will help us report on important public interest issues the community needs to know about now more than ever. You can register for a 30-day free trial HERE. Thereafter, The Pointer will charge $10 a month and you can cancel any time right on the website. Thank you