Judge said statements in online videos urging violence against Jews weren’t made in ‘public place’
The Ontario Court of Appeal allowed the Alliance of Canadians Combatting Antisemitism (ALCCA) to intervene in the Crown’s appeal against a man’s acquittal for public incitement of hatred relating to inflammatory and derogatory statements made in videos posted online.
In videos released over two years, the respondent in R. v. Bory, 2026 ONCA 542, urged his viewers to act violently against Jews. In his residence, police discovered numerous firearms and more than 20,000 ammunition rounds.
Authorities charged the respondent with advocating genocide, wilful promotion of hatred, and public incitement of hatred, as well as two counts of uttering threats and carelessly storing ammunition.
After a directed verdict application, the respondent received an acquittal for publicly inciting hatred and carelessly storing ammunition.
The trial judge determined that the case did not satisfy the requirement that the respondent communicate the statements in a “public place” because he made the statements only online.
A jury convicted the respondent of advocating genocide, wilfully promoting hatred, and two counts of uttering threats.
The respondent received a three-year global sentence, reduced to time served after crediting pre-trial custody.
The Crown and the respondent both brought sentence appeals.
In an appeal against the acquittal regarding public incitement of hatred, the Crown alleged that:
The court scheduled the appeal hearings for Nov. 20.
The ALCCA moved for leave to intervene only in the Crown’s acquittal appeal. The Crown consented to the motion, while the respondent opposed.
Under r. 30(1) of the Criminal Appeal Rules, the Court of Appeal for Ontario granted the ALCCA leave to intervene, subject to certain terms.
The appeal court ruled that an intervener’s perspective would likely assist it, considering the nature of the case and the issues involved.
The Ontario Court of Appeal recognized that the interpretation of “public place” under s. 319(1) of the Criminal Code had a wide-reaching impact, given the rising shift of public discourse toward the online sphere.
The appeal court held that the ALCCA and the groups on whose behalf it requested leave to intervene were well-recognized and had expertise in this issue.
The appeal court noted that appellate courts had yet to provide guidance on the necessary elements of public incitement of hatred.
The Ontario Court of Appeal ruled that the ALCCA’s proposed submissions were useful and adequately distinct from the Crown’s submissions, which only briefly discussed “public place.”
The appeal court explained that the ALCCA’s suggested submissions, which were not attempting to expand the issues, instead sought to:
Enjoy this story? Read the latest criminal law news on the main page!
Here are some similar news stories that may be of interest.
In late March 2025, the Advocates’ Society called off a scheduled end-of-term dinner speech by an entrepreneur who had referred to the Gaza conflict as a genocide. In April 2025, the organization established a task force to make recommendations to its board in connection with this controversy arising from this incident.
While some lawyers agreed with the Advocates’ Society’s decision to cancel the end-of-term dinner, they raised concerns regarding how the organization would deal with similar issues in the future.
Separately, in August 2025, two immigration lawyers agreed upon a settlement after one of them, who identified as a Zionist, sued the other for defamation relating to a LinkedIn comment that accused him of supporting genocide.
