After the conclusion of the single day letter-writing trial, defence lawyer John Philpot and Yves Engler spoke with Alex Tyrrell of Global Green News outside the courtroom about the Crown’s arguments and the broader implications of the case.
John Philpot said the core issue is whether the public has the right to contact a public servant about decisions that affect the public. People, he said, have every right to write to a police investigator, to express disagreement, and to offer input. Philpot dismissed the Crown’s claim that receiving 1,500 emails amounted to “violence,” calling the argument “nonsense” and “the opposite of violence.” He noted that the word “violence” is being misused by the prosecution because it is an emotionally loaded term designed to scare people.
Yves Engler stated that the police had abused their powers from the outset. He described how officers attempted to impose conditions that violated his Charter rights, brought charges that were later abandoned, and then added new charges after he organized a peaceful pushback. Engler criticized the prosecutor for being so detached from reality that he described a petition campaign ending with “sincerely” as a form of “violent communication.”
Retired lawyer Bill Sloan also offered his analysis of the case, suggesting that police may be acting defensively to protect themselves from potential civil liability for detaining Yves for five days. He argued that if police can portray their decisions as having been made in “good faith,” it could strengthen their position should Yves pursue legal action. Sloan added that, in his view, police “really have no case at all.”
Engler then said plainly: “If this is a violation of the law, then the law is the problem.” He condemned the five days he spent in jail over a simple petition campaign as a total infringement of fundamental rights, especially in a country where not a single person has been investigated — let alone prosecuted — for participating in Israeli military operations in Gaza. Engler noted that while Canadians have fought and killed in Gaza, none have faced any investigation under Canada’s War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity Act. Meanwhile, he explained, responding to Dalia Kurtz online and launching a peaceful action alert resulted in jail time and ongoing prosecution of him.
Police Are Seeking New Powers Through Case Law
Yves warned that the SPVM appears to be seeking a legal precedent that would allow police to treat ordinary political engagement — emails, phone calls, criticism — as harassment or obstruction whenever they dislike being contacted. He described this as “very dangerous” because it would expand police power to criminalize basic democratic participation.
He also mocked the Crown’s argument that a petition could constitute “violence,” pointing out that Action Network is simply a petition tool and that the number of responses reflects public concern, not criminal intent. Engler described it as “bitter irony” that the Crown focused on a peaceful petition while ignoring the context: a genocide in Gaza in which hundreds are being killed daily, many with Canadian-made weapons, yet the state is treating polite emails as “violence” against police.
Engler also criticized the prosecutor’s attempt to equate “annoyance” with “harassment,” noting that any Montreal police officer is likely annoyed by countless things in an ordinary day. Redefining annoyance as a criminal act would be absurd.
Police Detective Testified That Email Campaign “Froze” Her in Her Duties
During her testimony, the Montreal police detective at the center of the case claimed she was unable to work “for an entire day” because she received approximately 1,500 to 1,800 emails as a result of Engler’s action alert. She described herself as “almost afraid” and “intimidated,” even though she acknowledged that none of the emails contained threats or hostile language. According to her, the volume of messages temporarily prevented her from sending outgoing emails, though the IT department resolved the issue within hours by blocking incoming messages and cleaning up her inbox.
The detective argued that the campaign “froze” her in her duties and that having her name included in the petition constituted a form of “violence.” She insisted that the influx of emails constituted obstruction, stating that she was unable to contact witnesses or lawyers during the period before IT intervened. Her testimony is now central to the Crown’s attempt to expand the definition of harassment and obstruction to include political letter-writing campaigns directed at the police.
What The Petition Prosecutors Claimed Was “Violent” Actually Said
The email action at the centre of the criminal case against Yves Engler was a standard, peaceful letter-writing campaign hosted on Action Network — the same platform used by unions, NGOs, political parties, and social movements across North America. Supporters were invited to enter their name and address and send a single, polite message to the Montreal police officer involved in his file. The email contained no threats, no insults, and ended with the word “Sincerely.” As the screenshot below shows, this was an ordinary digital petition, not the “violence” or “harassment” the prosecution has attempted to portray in court.
Julius Grey Warns of a Dangerous Precedent
Prominent constitutional lawyer Julius Grey warned in the days before the trial that a conviction in Yves Engler’s letter-writing case would set a deeply dangerous precedent for freedom of expression in Canada. Grey said the prosecution’s theory would effectively mean that on any politically sensitive issue — especially those with powerful lobbies — ordinary people could no longer safely criticize public institutions. He emphasized that free expression cannot be reduced to a privilege used only for uncontroversial matters, and that democratic societies depend on the ability of citizens to speak openly to government bodies, including the police. Grey noted that courts have repeatedly affirmed that being offended is not grounds for limiting speech, and that public officials, including police, must tolerate scrutiny and dissent.
Grey also argued that what is happening to Engler is part of a broader and troubling trend. He said that if contacting the police through a peaceful petition can be reframed as harassment or obstruction, then people will become afraid to speak out on issues of public importance. He cautioned that the Crown’s attempt to draw a “red line” around engaging with police is not rooted in any clear legal precedent and appears designed to expand the ability of law enforcement to criminalize criticism. According to Grey, the idea that polite emails could constitute “violence” or criminal interference is absurd on its face, and the courts must reject it to prevent a chilling effect on democratic participation.
What’s Next?
The judge is expected to deliver a verdict in late January 2026, a decision that will determine whether a peaceful letter-writing campaign can legally be treated as criminal obstruction, harassment, or “violent communication.” The outcome could set a precedent with national implications for political advocacy, dissent, and public criticism of police conduct.
Beyond the criminal case, Yves Engler is also facing a civil defamation lawsuit launched by media personality Dalia Kurtz, who is simultaneously suing Roger Waters for the same posts and commentary. Both Engler and Waters are represented by renowned constitutional lawyer Julius Grey, who has framed the suit as part of a broader pattern of lawfare designed to chill criticism of Israel and silence pro-Palestinian voices.
Engler has filed a countersuit, which will focus on the damages he suffered during his five days in jail — detention he describes as punitive, baseless, and a clear violation of his constitutional rights. The civil proceedings are expected to unfold in parallel with the aftermath of the criminal verdict, ensuring that this legal and political battle continues well into 2026.
More updates will follow as both cases advance.
