Late on a Saturday night, the music stops at a banquet hall and an argument spills into the parking lot. People are shouting. Someone swears at a security guard. Peel Regional Police arrive, one person will not calm down, and that person ends up with a charge of causing a disturbance. By Monday morning, they are looking at a court date for something that felt like a bad evening.
Public order charges are among the less serious offences in the Criminal Code, and for many accused people that is genuinely reassuring. But they are still criminal charges. They bring fingerprints, conditions and a possible record, and they often sit alongside other allegations that carry far more weight. They are also more limited in scope than many people, and sometimes the officers involved, assume. Being loud and rude in public is not, by itself, a crime.
This post offers general information and does not amount to legal advice. If you have been charged, it is worth speaking to a lawyer about your own facts before your first court date.
What Section 175 Covers
Section 175(1) of the Criminal Code is a summary conviction offence with four parts. It applies to anyone who:
- Causes a disturbance in or near a public place, while not in a dwelling-house, by fighting, screaming, shouting, swearing, singing or using insulting or obscene language, by being drunk, or by impeding or molesting other persons
- Openly exposes or exhibits an indecent exhibition in a public place
- Loiters in a public place and in any way obstructs people there
- Disturbs the peace and quiet of occupants of a dwelling-house by discharging firearms or other disorderly conduct in a public place, or, if not an occupant, in part of a multi-unit building to which occupants have access
Each of those has its own limits. The dwelling-house wording matters: a screaming match inside your own home is not covered by the first branch, although neighbours and hallways may raise other issues. And loitering by itself is not enough, since it must obstruct someone.
Because this is a summary conviction offence, the general limits in section 787 apply: a fine of up to $5,000, up to two years less a day in jail, or both. Maximums rarely reflect what actually happens in a minor case, but they do show that it is a real criminal offence. Discharges are legally available, and many first-time accused people treat that or a withdrawal as their goal, although no outcome can be promised.
The Lohnes Rule: Annoyance Is Not Enough
The leading case is R. v. Lohnes, a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada. The accused had shouted obscenities at a neighbour. He was convicted, and the Supreme Court set the conviction aside.
The Court held that the word “disturbance” means something more than mental or emotional upset. Under Lohnes, the conduct must cause an externally manifested disturbance of the public peace, meaning some interference with the ordinary and customary use of the place by the public. That interference may be slight, but it must exist. It may flow from the act itself or from what the act causes, and it must be reasonably foreseeable in the circumstances of time and place.
This has very practical consequences. Consider a few hypothetical situations:
- A person swears at a store clerk at closing time, with no other customers present. The clerk is upset. That alone may not establish a disturbance.
- The same words in a crowded Bramalea City Centre food court, where shoppers stop eating, leave their tables and gather to watch, are much closer to the line.
- Two people shout on a sidewalk at 3 a.m. and neighbours come outside or call police. Here, the Crown may point to the effect on people’s ordinary use of the area, and the law will look at what actually occurred.
A complaint from one annoyed person does not settle the matter. The Crown should be able to point to something that actually happened, such as customers leaving, traffic stopping, or business being interrupted.
Evidence from Police Officers
Section 175(2) gives police evidence particular weight. In the absence of other evidence, or to support other evidence, a court may infer from a peace officer’s testimony about a person’s conduct that a disturbance or obstruction occurred. In other words, the Crown may not need a civilian witness.
Still, the officer’s evidence must be about conduct, and the judge decides what to infer. It helps to look for evidence that gives a fuller picture. Cellphone videos, parking lot cameras and bystanders may show that the scene was much calmer than the notes suggest, or that it became loud only after police arrived. Courts have been cautious about treating swearing directed at police as a disturbance on that basis alone, since officers are expected to tolerate some verbal abuse, though each case turns on its facts.
Other Public Order Charges You May See
Charges in this family often appear with, or instead of, section 175:
Obstructing or resisting a peace officer, section 129. A person who resists or wilfully obstructs an officer in the execution of duty can face this hybrid charge. Refusing to step back during an arrest, or physically pulling away, can trigger it. Asking questions politely or recording police from a safe distance is a different matter. Everything depends on the officer’s lawful duty and on what you did.
Assaulting a peace officer. A shove during an argument can quickly change the seriousness of what happened. Our page on assault charges discusses the broader concept.
Unlawful assembly and riot, sections 63 to 68. An unlawful assembly requires three or more people gathered with a common purpose who conduct themselves in a way that causes people nearby to reasonably fear they will disturb the peace tumultuously or needlessly provoke others to do so. Being in a crowd at a protest or at a cultural event is not an offence. Riots are defined as an unlawful assembly that has begun to disturb the peace tumultuously. Taking part in a riot is a hybrid offence with a maximum of two years on indictment, while taking part in an unlawful assembly is a summary conviction offence.
Mischief. If property was damaged or someone’s use of property was interrupted, mischief may be charged. For a closer look, see our mischief page.
Trespass. Under Ontario’s Trespass to Property Act, a person who stays after being told to leave by the occupier or someone authorized by them can be charged with a provincial offence. A shopping mall, restaurant or banquet hall may direct you to go, and refusing may start a chain of events. This is not a Criminal Code matter, but it may well be how a situation begins.
Public intoxication. Ontario’s liquor laws allow for arrest in certain situations where someone is intoxicated in a public place. Note that being drunk is listed in section 175, but only where it actually causes a disturbance.
Why Protests Raise Special Concerns
Brampton sees demonstrations and rallies on local and international issues, sometimes with strong feelings on all sides. The Charter protects peaceful assembly and expression, and these rights affect how public order offences are understood. Those rights are not absolute, however. Blocking an intersection or a store entrance, shouting directly at someone in a threatening way, or refusing a lawful police direction may attract charges.
If you are planning to attend a demonstration, know where you are and what the conditions are. Do not bring anything that could be seen as a weapon. If you are released with conditions after an arrest, including a term not to attend a particular place or take part in demonstrations, you must follow it. Breaching conditions is a separate charge, and it can be easier to prove than the original one. Talk to a lawyer about varying a condition you think is too broad, rather than ignoring it.
How These Cases Often Resolve
Depending on the facts and the accused’s history, a Crown may be open to various resolutions. Many first-time matters may be considered for diversion or for withdrawal after a person takes certain steps, such as making a donation, doing community service, or taking counselling. A peace bond can be another possible outcome, where the charge is withdrawn in exchange for a court-ordered promise to keep the peace. These are all options that a lawyer can discuss with a Crown prosecutor, and none can be guaranteed. Think carefully before you sign anything or plead. A discharge, for instance, still involves a finding of guilt, and it can still affect immigration, jobs and travel in some circumstances.
Alcohol is often part of the story. If there is an underlying issue, taking steps early to address it, such as seeing a counsellor, can be useful both personally and in discussions with the Crown.
Small Charge, Lasting Paper
Do not ignore the charge on the assumption that it is too small to matter. Failing to appear at your court date or fingerprinting appointment is itself an offence, and may lead to a warrant. A police record check for a job or volunteer role may reveal an outstanding charge at certain screening levels, and conviction records can follow a person. Non-citizens should not plead without advice on immigration consequences, and U.S. border issues can arise even from seemingly minor records.
Keep a copy of your release paperwork. Note the names of anyone who witnessed what happened, and ask nearby businesses to keep their video, because it may be gone within days. Stay away from posting about the incident online, particularly if a video has gone viral. What you write can be used as evidence, and your best explanation belongs in a confidential conversation with your lawyer.
You can learn how we approach cases like this through our criminal law page. Charges of this kind are often manageable with the right information, but it is worth making decisions about them carefully and early.