Can a CITY SHUT DOWN Wild St Paddy's Parties?

Are city crackdowns on St. Patrick’s Day parties really about public order—or about squashing a good time? 

Gavin Tighe and Stephen Thiele tackle the curious case of Waterloo v. Persons Unknown, where the city sought a rare quia timet injunction to prevent unpermitted St. Paddy's Day gatherings. 

What starts as a lighthearted banter about Guinness and green garb quickly dives into deeper waters: civil liberties, the evolution of secular holidays, the role of public policy in municipal law enforcement, and the historical tensions around Irish-Canadian identity. 

The duo debates whether municipalities should embrace or suppress grassroots celebration—and what it means when courts target faceless organizers for simply wanting to party.

Listen For

01:01 From Saint to Street Party

02:44 The Rise of Nuisance Bylaws

06:40 What Is a Quia Timet Injunction

14:55 No Right to Party Says the Court

18:51 The Forgotten Politics of St Patrick’s Day

26:48 The Ban That Makes Them Party Harder

Leave a rating/review for this podcast with one click

Contact Us

Gardiner Roberts website | Gavin email | Stephen email  

Transcript

Stephen Thiele (00:00)

⁓ there are faceless people ⁓ just basically saying hey gather at wilfred lori a university and let's celebrate saint patrick state

Gavin Tighe (00:21)

Hello and welcome to the next episode of Beneath the Law. I'm here with my good buddy Stephen Tighe

Stephen Thiele (00:28)

I'm your brother now! You've adopted me, thank you!

Gavin Tighe (00:32)

You gotta keep that we're gonna do an outtake but no, let's keep it Steven Thiele And I'm Gavin Tighe the Thiele Tighe Tighe Thiele Say that one 15 times with and and we're together say that one 15 times after 20 pints of Guinness on st. Patrick's Day Okay, so now we're gonna talk about our favorite my favorite day of the year st. Patrick's Day

Stephen Thiele (00:47)

tight

Gavin Tighe (01:01)

which has morphed into, well, I don't know if it's morphed, but it's become quite the event for drunk and debauchery. And you know what started out, have to say, so just by way of background, my parents immigrated from Ireland. So I am 100 % Irish raised on, know, cuisine boiled beyond recognition and church on Sunday. And St. Patrick's day was a very religious event.

⁓ St. Patrick's day. remember when I was a kid and you'd go, it's changed now, but when I was a kid and you go back to Ireland, it was very solemn. St. Patrick's day was not like jumping around and getting hammered in street. It was, you went to church, St. Patrick's day. was a, it was a saint's day, very holy day. Certainly has changed. ⁓ now there's a lot of baptizing going on in Brown liquid, ⁓ and other

amber liquids. ⁓ And it's turned into in Canada, quite the day for students in a number of locations. I know ⁓ Kingston, Ontario has been notorious. London with West University, Western Ontario, notorious. And one in Waterloo, which has its share of universities and has become rather notorious. And Guelph, I think, was another one where they really go. ⁓

bananas, not to take the Irish show. We'll say they go potatoes ⁓ rather than bananas, but they go, ⁓ yeah, the kids, certainly if enjoy, ⁓ the festivities on St. Patrick's day, but a lot of people don't.

Stephen Thiele (02:44)

No, and what we're seeing now is ⁓ cities have passed what they call nuisance party bylaws to prevent, ⁓ I guess, unpermitted gatherings or impromptu gatherings. Maybe that's a better word ⁓ for people who want to celebrate and come together and enjoy what is now a social event.

Was there a movie that made St. Patrick's Day so popular that turned it into a party? I don't know.

Gavin Tighe (03:16)

No, I think it just became like the proclivity, ⁓ to turn it into this. Just, it's just become a, ⁓ a day of drinking. It's like, it's, it's lost all of its, ⁓ you know, religious significance, for another really, I guess, other, you look, especially as a lot of fun. It's one of those. Yeah. I mean, I think that there are a couple of holidays, if I can call them that in, you know,

That are not particularly, ⁓ you know, they're not associated. Well, they may have origins in religion, but they've become quite secularized and just a lot of fun. mean, I think of, you know, Halloween is another one. It's a lot of fun. It's a lot of parties on Halloween. It's one of those days everybody can relate to. it's not really, no one can get really annoyed about it. St. Patrick's day, same sort of thing. Obviously celebrating, you know, Irish culture and heritage, but one particular aspect of it.

potentially more than others.

Stephen Thiele (04:17)

Well, I think, Evan, look, you know, from ⁓ generating economic activity, bringing people together, I think all these events are, you know, very important to society, right? There's the other event to an October that takes place is Oktoberfest. Right. Exactly. Where people get together and it's just all about, yeah. Right. But it's all about bringing people together and, you know, we all live stressful lives.

Gavin Tighe (04:37)

With ethnic origin.

Stephen Thiele (04:45)

and these are a good stress reliever for people

Gavin Tighe (04:51)

Yeah. So I what your term, ⁓ impromptu, there's nothing impromptu about it. It's like, this is happening on this date. So, you know, March the 17th is St. Patrick's day. And I take it that that's when the party's going to happen, but unpermitted and unsanctioned and, you know, probably ungovernable, ⁓ are all words that could, ⁓ describe these gatherings in university towns.

Stephen Thiele (05:16)

Yeah, and so what we're seeing and you've raised various jurisdictions, know, ⁓ town of Wasaga, city of Hamilton, I'm sure a lot of municipalities have these what are called nuisance bylaws, but specifically targeted at these kinds of parties, which are being organized ⁓ online by unknown people. There are faceless people just basically saying, hey, gather at

Wilfrid Laurier University and let's celebrate St. Patrick's Day. And it gets around and people show up and in Waterloo they had at one point in time 33,000 people in 2019 at these street gatherings. Yeah, that's a lot of people.

Gavin Tighe (06:01)

That's a lot of people.

So, yeah, so the government, the municipal government in Waterloo ⁓ decided to ⁓ take a preventative measure by going to court and getting an injunction against persons unknown, which is an interesting, ⁓ you know, an interesting way to pass an injunction because it raises a whole series of issues for me, but maybe you could tell our listeners a bit about.

a quiat time at injunction against persons unknown, which has a whole whack of legal implications.

Stephen Thiele (06:40)

Yeah, so the Queer Timid Injunction, which is a very, I guess, rare kind of injunction. You don't see it at all the time, is essentially ⁓ obtained in a case where you want to prevent something from happening in the future. So, you know, there used to be, you know, those pay-per-view shows and, you know, ⁓ know, wrestling was one of them.

But you would, ⁓ people would basically steal the satellite feed, right? And then show that at bars. And, you know, I can recall, you know, decades ago where, ⁓ you know, the organizers of these wrestling events would get injunctions before the event was aired to make sure that, bars and restaurants were not stealing the satellite feed and that they were actually doing pay per view. And so that's the kind of injunctions that you would get.

and then you'd actually have to go to the bars and everything and serve the order ⁓ to make sure that they weren't showing the event. So a quid temit injunction is basically to prevent a future event ⁓ and what the city of Waterloo did in this particular case, Waterloo versus persons unknown, is they went to get an injunction to prevent St. Patrick's Day, unauthorized I guess or unpermitted St. Patrick's

day's gatherings within the city, particularly around the universities. There are University of Waterloo, Wilfrid Laurier University, and Conestoga College.

Gavin Tighe (08:18)

So just so I understand this, I'm kind of scratching my head a bit about what's the point. There would be a bylaw that says, you know, there can't be gatherings or can't be noise violations or can't obviously be all the other associated bad behavior that goes along with the revelry, which is

Stephen Thiele (08:40)

Yeah,

the public drunkenness and other nonsense things.

Gavin Tighe (08:45)

Okay. I mean, we can talk about why that seems to be permitted in other contexts, right. in any event, the, okay. So there's a law on the books already. So, you know, here it's happening, go out and enforce the law. What's, what, what's the point, ⁓ of the injunction? I suppose you could get people and pull people in contempt of court if they breach it, if they, but won't they be aware of that to be held in contempt? Well,

Stephen Thiele (09:12)

Well,

I don't think the revelers are the ones who are necessarily being targeted. I think it's shutting down the advertising and the promotion ⁓ on social media accounts. ⁓ Again, you know, I'm not sure in terms of ⁓ the enforceability ⁓ there. I think that's really hard ⁓ to get because you've got to go and what like go to Facebook and get Facebook to shut it down. Facebook wasn't a party. Well, exactly. Right. And, you know,

⁓ Right and Instagram, know, like where are you going to serve the order at the end of the day once you get it? I think from the city's perspective, Gavin reading the decision and the evidence, I guess that they put forward the cities are concerned that they're incurring all kinds of costs with respect to monitoring.

the gatherings ⁓ responding to n calls from ⁓ from concerned residents ⁓ you know having to deal with ⁓ you know the very few people ⁓ who ⁓ you know break the law and cause property damage i mean you know that this is i think what kind of bothers me about ⁓ getting the injunction because of the injunction is a pretty harsh remedy ⁓ it's not all the people who attend these gator gatherings

who are being on lawful in fact i think when you look at ⁓ the majority of the people they're just enjoying themselves and so you know i look at it as a well is the city taking too harsh an approach to these kinds of events yes they're incurring all kinds of money but then cities allow what in the view of others is unlawful activity like

⁓ encampments in our public parks yes ending about more money ⁓ doing that so

Gavin Tighe (11:12)

in water.

I mean, we talked about ⁓ that case a number of episodes ago in the city of Waterloo, where there was a public park that was, you know, this wasn't a one day event. Now, there wasn't 33,000 campers in there, but there was enough. ⁓ And they were hanging around for a lot longer than one day. And they had basically taken over a park in Waterloo.

⁓ And the city tried to get an injunction to remove them or in order to remove them. that order was denied on the basis that it infringed upon the charter rights of the people in the park, who presumably one of the issues that was raised was, you know, they were intoxicated on various substances ⁓ and doing all the things that you do when one's intoxicated, kind of like St. Patrick's Day.

Stephen Thiele (12:13)

So, and causing a nuisance

Gavin Tighe (12:16)

And

for if to the exclusion of the residents and that injunction was was was not granted. There was no it would not be ordered to be removed from the park. In fact, I'm sorry, I'm getting mixed up. was an order that they they not be removed from the park. Correct. It's the opposite. So, ⁓ you know, it's a little trouble. mean, what in this instance? OK, so let's say that there's a park with no ⁓ no one camping in it.

Uh, are my chances better to get a, uh, quia timid injunction, uh, to prevent people from going in there than it is for me to get, uh, to, to enforce a bylaw to remove them.

Stephen Thiele (12:56)

Well, I think you would need evidence. You know, if somebody was organizing, let's camp in the park and create a permanent encampment there, you know, you could probably get an injunction. Remember, I mean, for a quid timid injunction, Gavin, a person needs to an applicant needs to satisfy the three part test, right? You need to have evidence. You need to show there's a serious issue to be tried, that there's a reporable harm and that the balance of convenience favors the granting of the injunction.

So you do need that for the quayettamit. ⁓ under municipal law, the city is empowered to enforce its bylaws. And therefore, if they're looking for an injunction, all they have to show is that the bylaws been breached. They don't need to show the other elements of the test. ⁓ What's curious, though, I think, ⁓ in this case is the judge addresses the charter issue and basically comes to a conclusion that the charter doesn't apply

where somebody's breaching a bylaw. And that is a really distinguishing feature from the Waterloo case, where the encampment case in Waterloo, where the judge did apply the charter, maybe incorrectly. ⁓ I've seen cases ⁓ that basically say the same thing as the judge did ⁓ in this case that we're discussing, the persons unknown case.

⁓ where they have said that the charter does not imply does not apply where somebody is breaking the law. And so, you know, we have a nuisance bylaw. And, you know, a party would be a street party would be, you know, the assembly of people together and expressing themselves, ⁓ you know, for the event. But the court said that the charter does not apply to protect that right. And so there's no right to party.

⁓ in the view of the court.

Gavin Tighe (14:55)

Well, I think you've raised an interesting distinction because the objective, I suppose, of the injunction you're answering my question is that the objective of the injunction was not necessarily, is even one step ⁓ before the party, was to prevent the organization and propagation of ⁓ information regarding where this party will be and when and whatever. And bring your leprechaun outfit. ⁓

But you know, that's that's that's a remarkable ruling of the court that it's preventing ultimately a expression or a communication by people who do not by definition have the ability to make any representation to the court. mean, obviously they don't have the ability to make

representations to the court because they wouldn't know anything about the application because it is against persons unknown. In other words, this order will apply against you even though you had no notice of it, even though you had no ability to make argument against the granting of the order. it just instantaneously would apply to you for what is effectively an expression or a communication.

Stephen Thiele (16:22)

Yeah, and look, from a practical level, and we touched upon it ⁓ earlier, what is the practicality of this injunction? Because St. Patrick's Day is a fixed date on the calendar. And whether somebody organizes online ⁓ gatherings, people are going to have gatherings anyway, and they can do it simply by word of mouth. I mean, I can...

you know i can foresee university students in a dorm or in residence saying hey let's gather on the front lawn of you know kings college for example in university of toronto and let's have a you know what's enjoy saint patrick's day and you know once you tell two friends ⁓ it it it's ⁓ you know will snowball right so

Gavin Tighe (17:14)

Well, let me throw out another concern that I've got, ⁓ from a perspective of sort of a civil liberties perspective. And I, you know, it may seem it's always one of these things that, okay. Bunch of drunken idiots, ⁓ on St. Patrick's day doesn't seem like much of a right and anybody wants to protect. Okay, fine. I get that. But let's, let's talk about what this order is. It's an order of the court against people who had no notice of it and who are not named in it. It's a, it's a blanket order.

that prevents communication with respect to gatherings on a given what is originally religious feast day. Now, let's say that I wanted to organize on my Facebook page, I don't know, procession ⁓ to St. Patrick's Cathedral. Would that be would I be in breach of the injunction if I were to send that out in my I don't know, my church bulletin? ⁓

In a different context, you know, with the trouble that I have is the court and joining communication that the court a hasn't even seen yet. And what's what's the limitation on on the type of communication? Or any limitation?

Stephen Thiele (18:26)

Is there any-

Well, that's a good question, but the court presumably would have seen the communication that was sent out because Waterloo police were monitoring the social media. So that communication was clear that these faceless people were ⁓ suggesting or advising people- Well-

Gavin Tighe (18:51)

So the type of communication.

Well, that's my, that's my question. Is it broad enough to say that any communication relating to gathering on St. Patrick? And not to, not to put too fine a point of it, but St. Patrick's day in, and this was really getting off topic of the drunken idiots on a university campuses, but St. Patrick's day in certainly in Canada has a long and ⁓ difficult, frankly, political

history to the point where, you know, we have a St. Patrick's day parade here in Toronto, but it was banned. It's illegal to have a St. Patrick's day parade for, you know, a hundred years in Toronto because there was a great tension between the white Anglo-Saxon majority, ⁓ Protestant majority here in Toronto, ⁓ with the Catholic,

Irish immigrants to the point where there was violence, there was there was, fact, ⁓ people died in in in altercations ⁓ in the, know, in the late 1800s and they banned the parade entirely. You couldn't have a St. Patrick's Day parade in Toronto was illegal. Now you had it. was an Orange Lodge parade in Toronto. And for for as long as I can remember. So.

You know, that really has, that's a very politicized issue. So, I mean, I think it's really, you know, curious that that probably has, and it has nothing obviously to do with those political roots, but it is, it was a historically very charged and political issue, ⁓ dealing with, you know, what was at the time, ⁓ a very difficult relationship between the Catholic minority and the Protestant majority here in Toronto.

Stephen Thiele (20:44)

Yeah, for sure. I guess is it the term Fenians comes to mind? Is that right?

Gavin Tighe (20:49)

Well, the feet women that and that comes in. That's all part of that history, right? The history was, of course, that the Finians were ⁓ Irish Republicans who jury who were who were primarily Americans. And what the Fenian raids, which we've all heard about in our history books, were, you know, groups of them who would attack British outposts here in what was then upper Canada ⁓ as part of their struggle.

for ⁓ a free and united Republic of Ireland, which had gone on for hundreds of years. But the Finians and all that very much politicized here in ⁓ Ontario and in Canada, which was, of course, under British rule and certainly part of the, and still is part of the Commonwealth of Great Britain. ⁓ And that grew, had all sorts of political ramifications.

Not necessarily an apolitical thing to ban organizers of a St. Patrick's Day festival.

Stephen Thiele (21:51)

No, and look, mean, luckily, Gavin, we've evolved for the most part, other than we're now seeing a decision to block a St. Patrick's Day gathering. But I guess from the city's perspective and all cities, look, they incur costs ⁓ when these impromptu or unpermitted events take place. I know that cities require, if you're holding a parade or some kind of ⁓ public event,

where hundreds or thousands of people are ⁓ gathering that they require you to pay for the policing costs and the servicing of that event. ⁓ And so the taxpayer does get impacted. at the same time, I'd look at the opposite side of the coin here. ⁓ How much business activity is being generated when people gather? They go to restaurants, they buy food or drink.

⁓ or other things and provided that, ⁓ you know, there's minimal damage that occurs. didn't quite frankly, Gavin, I didn't see about any statistics in the decision about actual property damage being caused or how much that cost. And, you know, there's a handful of arrests and that kind of thing. So, you know, is is the injunction potentially too overbroad?

Or maybe it's an opportunity for others to actually organize permitted events ⁓ and create better economic activity and ⁓ make people proud to celebrate St. Patrick's Day and have fun celebrating St. Patrick's Day.

Gavin Tighe (23:41)

Yeah. mean, I think, you know, one of the things that, you know, we try to do on this podcast is we talk not only about the decision, but also the underlying social policy aspects to get into it and why, why are the courts doing what they're doing, ⁓ particularly in the, these types of cases where resorts are made to the court to enforce what is basically a public policy objective by a municipal government. So, you know, I, I tend to agree with you in a great many ways. I think there's really,

two approaches that municipalities can take. They can either embrace ⁓ the gatherings and legitimize this to some extent and potentially get control of it and turn it into a positive, or they can clamp down on it and make it very impossible to undertake and you end up with all sorts of altercations. And it really does happen a lot in the university settings. I'm really gonna date myself, but.

I went to Queens many, many years ago in Kingston, Ontario, and they now still have these terrible, we see it on TV every year, the homecoming events where there's street parties and all the police are rolling in with tear gas and the rest of it. And then I remember when I was there, one year they, and that was true. And then one year they just, the city just said, you know what, great. You have your street party. It's all, you you'll block the street off. They had a concert on the street.

they turned it into a big event and it was, I don't think there was any tear gas or whatever. There was, seemed to be no particular issue with it. Then they've gone back now to this sort of we're going to roll in the riot police and, you know, income, the stormtroopers. I wonder like, you know, what, is the thinking with, with respect to that? ⁓ I don't know why, ⁓ these, mean, I guess, you know, there are some events that I think, ⁓ you know, you, you would want to shut down. were.

you know, hate motivated events or what have you. If you had, don't know, a Nazi march or you could absolutely shutting that down. But, I think municipal governments need to sometimes step back and say, you know, sometimes it's better to embrace, you know, events and incorporate them and try to make them better than it is to just bring in the the as I said, the storm troopers and with the riot police and try to shut everybody down.

Stephen Thiele (26:03)

Well, and Gavin, look, I think there's a real fine line here. We're certainly ⁓ living in an ⁓ era right now where there is a lot of protests going on. ⁓

Gavin Tighe (26:19)

which doesn't seem to engender any of this type of reaction.

Stephen Thiele (26:23)

Correct, and some of those protests have been accused of spewing hate ⁓ and governments permit those protests to take place without any form of ⁓ injunction application being brought. And here we have an injunction being brought where people are basically trying to enjoy themselves.

Gavin Tighe (26:48)

Yeah. I mean, from a social policy perspective, I understand the pros and the cons on each side of this. I just think it's so much easier to control a legitimate official, not maybe not official, but sanctioned event than it is to try to control some radical, you know, complete ad hoc ⁓ thing like a street party just happening and they get out of control.

so, so, so quickly. ⁓ I wonder at the thinking of municipal governments sometimes to run off to get this type of an order. And quite frankly, I doubt very much that this injunction will have any impact on these types of St. Patrick's Day parties. In fact, let me suggest to you that my view is the more you try to ban it, the more it's going to have.

Stephen Thiele (27:47)

Yeah, you're going to encourage people to continue this kind of activity and it becomes a game. ⁓

Gavin Tighe (27:56)

Absolutely. So absolutely. And a game with no winners. And anyways, everyone should enjoy St. Patrick's day. and as the day that, ⁓ that it is a fun, a light, a light day celebration. ⁓ and don't get, don't go too far, because that's never fun because the March the 18th does come along and the morning of will feel quite awful. not, stay within it.

Stephen Thiele (28:21)

Know your limit.

Ha

Gavin Tighe (28:29)

In any event, Stephen, always, always a pleasure. And thank you all for listening. had a, I had a comment from a listener. First of all, that was fantastic because when we get a call from a listener, at least we know we have a listener ⁓ who's listening. and one of the things they were saying was that, you know, that they didn't get enough sort of technical analysis on the, on the legal issues. I have to say, appreciate that. Thank you for the comment. You're right. There's probably not a lot of ⁓ great technical analysis in, our, in these podcasts.

That's on purpose. of the aspects of this podcast is not going to be the submission that we would make in a courtroom. It's not going to be the type of technical analysis that we would put into, for example, a factum that we were writing in a court case. It's more to talk about some of the issues as we see them in the courts dealing with them and the function in our society of the judicial branch.

of government in governing us as a society. And you're going to hear a lot of opinions on this podcast, even some of which are not going to like. That's kind of And some of which you might agree with and some of which you won't. That's the way opinions are.

Stephen Thiele (29:40)

Isn't that what the practice of law is all about? I mean, get 35 lawyers in a room and they'll give you 35 different opinions.

Gavin Tighe (29:46)

100%. And one of the things that's really great is, you we argue cases all the time, many times we don't agree with, if you ask for our personal opinion, our personal opinions are relevant. We're there to put forward two sides of an issue and the court hearing both sides of the argument, generally speaking, comes out with the right answer, which is oftentimes somewhere in the middle. And that's the reason why our adversarial system works as well as it does. And I think opinions matter.

And if you don't agree with ours, please let us know. great. It's great to get, I love hearing a contra opinion. It makes you think about your own and tests, you know, some of the, the, the suppositions that you base your views on. And it's always great to have your own opinion evolve by listening to someone else's view on the subject. And that's ultimately, I guess what we're all trying to do.

Stephen Thiele (30:37)

And certainly Gavin, neither you and I are above the law because...

Gavin Tighe (30:42)

Everyone is beneath it.