Police fine for displaying non-commercial sandwich board at rally sparks constitutional challenge

Share this:

Brian Jenkins wearing a sandwich board reading “Let us pray for the end of abortion" (Courtesy of Brian Jenkins)
Brian Jenkins wearing a sandwich board reading “Let us pray for the end of abortion" (Courtesy of Brian Jenkins)

Police fine for displaying non-commercial sandwich board at rally sparks constitutional challenge

Brian Jenkins wearing a sandwich board reading “Let us pray for the end of abortion" (Courtesy of Brian Jenkins)
Brian Jenkins wearing a sandwich board reading “Let us pray for the end of abortion" (Courtesy of Brian Jenkins)

Share this:

SHERBROOKE, PQ: The Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms announces that lawyers are bringing a constitutional challenge on behalf of Brian Jenkins after he was fined by local police for peacefully expressing his views at a public rally in Sherbrooke.

Mr. Jenkins, who works as an outreach director for a non-profit organization, was participating in a pro-life rally on November 1, 2025, on Belvédère Street, where he wore a placard in front of and behind him displaying his convictions. A police officer issued a fine under a municipal by-law that prohibits the use of “sandwich boards” in public places.

However, the Sherbrooke by-law explicitly applies only to commercial advertising and solicitation. Mr. Jenkins was not advertising, selling, or promoting any commercial activity.

Mr. Jenkins said, “I was confused when I was told that I was in violation of a municipal ordinance, especially since I had not been approached in the previous four years while doing the same activity.”

Constitutional lawyer Olivier Seguin said, “This is a case where law enforcement agencies, in addition to applying their regulations in a clearly illegal manner, attempted to use them to suppress speech they did not like.”

“In a modern society where almost all areas of life are regulated, it is essential that regulations are applied for legitimate, relevant purposes, and not for the purpose of persecution,” he added.

This case raises broader concerns about the misuse of municipal regulations to suppress peaceful expression on matters of public debate, even where the governing law clearly limits enforcement to commercial activity.

A hearing date on this matter has not yet been scheduled.

Share this:

Supreme Court of Canada (Courtesy of Google Maps)

New Westminster Times: Notwithstanding: John Carpay on Woke Judges & Section 33 of the Charter

The Supreme Court of Canada has now finished listening to arguments from the federal government about watering down section 33...
Photo of Dr. Widdowson (Courtesy of an anonymous contributor)

Complaint filed after police failed to respond to repeated 911 calls during violent confrontation at University of Winnipeg

WINNIPEG, MB: The Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms announces that a complaint has been filed with Manitoba’s Law...
Surveillance (Courtesy of ImageFlow)

Western Standard: Ottawa froze protesters’ bank accounts — now Ottawa wants your phone records

Like many expansions of government power, Bill C-22 (dubbed the Lawful Access Act) arrives dressed in reassuring bureaucratic language....

Explore Related News

Photo of Dr. Widdowson (Courtesy of an anonymous contributor)
Read More
Rural Municipality of Springfield, Manitoba (Courtesy of Daniel Page)
Read More
Geoffrey Horsman (Courtesy of Geoffrey Horsman
Read More
Photo of Dr. Widdowson (Courtesy of an anonymous contributor)
Rural Municipality of Springfield, Manitoba (Courtesy of Daniel Page)
Geoffrey Horsman (Courtesy of Geoffrey Horsman
Justice Centre report