The City of Winnipeg is proposing a
BAN ON PROTESTS
Have you ever been to a protest? Do you want to keep attending them without a fear of being fined?
Then we need your help to oppose Evan Duncan's “By-law of THE CITY OF WINNIPEG to prohibit nuisance demonstrations and intimidation of persons at or in respect of vulnerable social infrastructure”
According to the Canadian Civil Liberties Association (CCLA), since 2024, numerous municipalities have adopted bylaws that prohibit peaceful protests near various community gathering spaces. CCLA believes this is a concerning trend and that bylaws like these are unconstitutional. They've begun to initiate Charter litigation against the bylaws.
“It's clear that this draft bylaw raises a lot of concerns. On its face, it directly infringes freedom of expression and freedom of peaceful assembly, two rights that are protected by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms,” said Anais Bussieres McNicoll, the director of the fundamental freedoms program at the Canadian Civil Liberties Association.
“It's extremely broad in its scope,” she said. “It creates very broad bubble zones on sidewalks and public streets near hundreds, if not thousands, of community gathering spaces in Winnipeg. Within these zones, speech that expresses objection or disapproval towards an idea, action, person, or group based on any specified characteristics will be prohibited.
“This bylaw is not about protecting public safety because it wrongly presumes that disruptive or unpopular expression near certain community gathering spaces is something that we should get rid of.”
Read the full text of the draft bylaw: Section 7, Appendix B
We need to tell the City of Winnipeg bylaws like these are not welcome here.
Why fight this bylaw?
- “Nuisance Protest” is non-specific, meaning any and all actions could be subject.
- Areas restricted by this by-law are public spaces and points of proximity to decision makers. Much of the city would be subject to the geographic restrictions of this bylaw including City Hall and University Campuses.
- Fines of up to $5000 could be issued to every person who shows up to Round Dances, rallies, group bike rides, marches, etc.
- Police will have new tools they will use to silence and punish protesters.
- We are very concerned this bylaw will be racist in its application, limiting protests and rallies promoting Indigenous rights, among others.
UPDATE
Hey folks,
It was really important for you to stand up for our community on Tuesday Feb 17th. Hundreds of us gathered at City Hall for the rally and dozens spoke beautifully to EPC. When we come together to fight back, we win.
In the end, EPC voted to "receive the report and motion as information" which means the by-law will not be enacted, at least for now. The City Clerk's office confirmed for us that the by-law will not be on the agenda for the full council meeting
This is a win for us.
THE TIMELINE FOR ACTION IS IMMEDIATE
- ⚠️ Tuesday Feb 17th: Executive Policy Committee (EPC) vote
- ⚠️ Thursday Feb 26, 9:30am: Full City Council debate at City Hall
- 📣 CALL OR EMAIL YOUR CITY COUNCILLOR to say that bylaws like this are NOT WELCOME HERE
- 📣 SPEAK to your union, community, cultural, and religious leaders about this proposed by-law and urge them to stand against it
- 📣 TELL PEOPLE! Invite your friends and neighbours to the protest and get the word out! Text your friends, "I'm going, can you come with me?"
More Resources
Visualize the Impact
City Councillor Contact Info
Text of the Draft By-law
Academic Open Letter
Academic Open Letter on "Safe Access to Vulnerable Infrastructure" By-law
Bike Winnipeg
News Coverage
CBC News
Proposed protest buffer would threaten free speech, groups warn (Video)
Community groups push back on Winnipeg's 100-metre protest ban proposal
Anti-Protest Community Meeting (Audio)
Winnipeg councillor backtracks on proposed 100-metre protest ban after community pushback
Winnipeggers rally against protest bylaw despite councillor shelving motion
CTV News
Winnipeg councillor withdraws support for proposed protest bylaw
Winnipeg Free Press
Reining in right to rally not a good look
Reining in right to rally not a good look
City’s proposed ‘nuisance’ protest ban doesn’t pass Charter test
Hundreds at city hall protest bylaw proposal
Jewish leaders support limits on ‘nuisance’ protests, others voice concerns
Councillor to shelve controversial ‘nuisance’ protests bylaw proposal
‘Nuisance’ protest bylaw stalled after hundreds object
Councillor’s intentions may have been clear, but vague bylaw language was not
CityNews
Winnipeggers rally at city hall after councillor walks back protest bylaw
Winnipeggers push back against proposed protest bylaw (Video)
Winnipeg Sun
Winnipeg coalition opposes protest bylaw at City Hall
APTN
Concerned Indigenous community prevent proposed protest by-law from moving forward (Video)
The Brandon Sun
Press Release
Community rally against anti-democratic by-law continues despite Duncan’s walk-back
Winnipeg, MB—The community will still rally despite sponsor Councillor Evan Duncan’s commitment to oppose passage of the anti-democratic “Safe Access to Vulnerable Infrastructure By-Law” and receive the report as information. The proposed by-law, which remains on council’s agenda and could still be passed, would restrict Charter-protected rights to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly. “We simply cannot risk an infringement on our Charter rights and freedoms. We haven't won quite yet but we are going to win!” said Kakeka ThunderSky, a rally organizer.
On February 17th at 9:00am a diverse coalition of Winnipeg community members will gather at City Hall to oppose The proposal was championed by City Councillor Evan Duncan, who withdrew his support for the by-law citing its wide unpopularity and over-reach. The by-law will be discussed at the Executive Policy Committee (EPC) following the rally.
Over one hundred organizations will be represented from all over Winnipeg, unified in their opposition to the repressive and overreaching by-law. This complements over 1,000 written submissions to EPC and 118 community members registered to speak against the by-law at the EPC meeting. “Winnipeggers overwhelmingly reject this anti-democratic by-law which unnecessarily restricts Charter-protected rights to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly” said Anny Chen, a rally organizer.
“Despite what Councillor Duncan has said in the press, the proposed by-law would limit peaceful protests by imposing $5,000 fines, per person, at any protest that does not have a permit and uses microphones or amplified sound or impedes pedestrian or car traffic in any way. These restrictions indiscriminately apply to all gatherings regardless of any intimidation, and can be triggered by a single participant’s actions. It constrains demonstrations that occur near a long list of public locations, more restrictive than any other Canadian bylaw, even when the demonstration is in no way related to the protected location or facility” said Andrew Kohan, a rally organizer.
“If this by-law passes, it would mean common forms of free expression and peaceful assembly would not be allowed in 25% of the land area of the city, including high proportions of downtown and dense central neighbourhoods” Kohan continued. Tuesday’s rally will feature a large map illustrating how much area falls within the proposed restrictions. “Even public, political facilities that proponents say should be fair game for protests, like the Legislature grounds and City Hall, fall within the proposed restrictions,” Kohan said.
While Councillor Duncan claims the by-law will protect marginalized communities, members of those communities reject his claims. Organizations representing protected groups have mobilized broad memberships to oppose this harmful and unnecessary by-law proposal.
“The disability community has and will continue to use various forms of protest to assert our rights. People with physical or mental disabilities are identified as a protected group in the draft by-law, but we want to make it very clear that we will not allow any by-law that proposes to restrict our Charter rights to be done in the name of ‘protecting’ us,” said Allen Mankewich, interim executive director of the Manitoba League of Persons with Disabilities.
“The broad scope of the proposed by-law will give police discretion in ways that are likely to target Indigenous people, Black people, and other marginalized community members. It does not protect us, it puts us at risk. Round dances and other Indigenous actions on our own territory would be subject to huge fines. This is unacceptable” said Kakeka ThunderSky, a rally organizer.
“As a rabbinical student and member of the Jewish community, I am deeply concerned about any restrictions on civil liberties—Jewish safety is deeply intertwined with that of other minorities, and nothing keeps us safer than an open society where neighbours know and protect neighbours,” said Emèt Eviatar.
Further, members of the organizing coalition note that the proposed by-law infringes on both the Charter rights of students and faculty on university campuses. “The Charter Rights to free expression and freedom of association must be protected within our communities and particularly on the campuses of Winnipeg’s post-secondary institutions” said Patrick Noël, President of the Manitoba Organization of Faculty Associations (MOFA).
The community coalition is joined by organized labour. “Labour is united on our stance against this proposed by-law, ” said Melissa Dvorak, President of the Winnipeg Labour Council. “Labour action as a form of free expression has long been vilified as a nuisance. We will not tolerate City Council’s attempts at infringing our, or anyone else’s, right to free expression.” said Jenna Tichon, Vice-President of the University of Manitoba Faculty Association (UMFA).
Following the rally, members of the coalition will join the gallery in City Hall to observe the EPC meeting and deliver delegations.
Legal Opinions
Manitoba Eco-Network
JAMES BEDDOME PERSONAL COMMENTS
INTRODUCTION
I write these comments in opposition to the draft Safe Access to Vulnerable Infrastructure By-Law (proposed By-Law), scheduled for consideration by the Executive Policy Committee on February 17th, 2025, #7 on the Agenda.
I write these comments as a private citizen, but I am also a lawyer called to the Bar in Manitoba. Ultimately the Courts will decide (should they be called upon); but in my opinion there are serious risks that the proposed By-Law could be successfully challenged on constitutional grounds.
LEGAL OVERVIEW
There seems little doubt that this by-law infringes on Charter rights, including (but not necessarily limited to) freedom of expression (Subsection 2b), and freedom of peaceful assembly (Subsection 2c).
This by-law limits a "nuisance demonstration" within 100 meters of: "(a) cemetery, where the City is the registered owner; (b) community centre; (c) commercial school; (d) cultural centre; (e) healthcare facility; (f) hospital; (g) independent school; (h) library; (i) neighbourhood rehabilitation home; (j) place of worship; (k) post-secondary institution; or (l) public school."
Nuisance demonstration is defined to include "any expression" "towards an idea, action, person or group based on or related to any specified characteristics" or "obstructing the passage of pedestrians or motor vehicles without an applicable permit issued by the City" or using amplified speakers without a City permit.
The question the Courts will undoubtedly need to address is whether the by-law is justified in accordance with Section 1 of the Charter, states that rights and freedoms are “subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.”
The interpretation of the Section 1 of the Charter, or in other words when infringements on rights and freedoms are justified, is well established law. The Supreme Court of Canada’s 1986 decision R. v. Oakes (1986 CanLII 46 (SCC), [1986] 1 SCR 103) is the seminal decision that established what lawyers often refer to as the “Oakes justification test.”
The Oakes test sets out how to determine whether limits on rights and freedoms prescribed by law are reasonable and demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society. The party seeking to uphold the limitation has the onus of justifying why an exception to the guaranteed rights and freedoms is justified (Oakes, para 66).
- Firstly, there must be an objective that relates to pressing and substantial purpose that are of sufficient importance to warrant overriding a constitutionally protected right or freedom. The standard must be high in order to ensure that objectives which are trivial or discordant with the principles integral to a free and democratic society do not gain s. 1 protection (Oakes, para 69).
- Secondly, there has to be proportionality between the objective and the means used to achieve it. This will vary with the circumstances, but requires a three component sub-test:
- First, the measures adopted must be carefully designed to achieve the objective in question. They must not be arbitrary, unfair or based on irrational considerations. In short, they must be rationally connected to the objective.
- Second, the means, even if rationally connected to the objective in this first sense, should impair "as little as possible" the right or freedom in question.
- Third, there must be a proportionality between the effects of the measures which are responsible for limiting the Charter right or freedom, and the objective which has been identified as of "sufficient importance." There has to be a rational connection (Oakes, para 70).
With respect to the third component: “the inquiry into effects must, however, go further. A wide range of rights and freedoms are guaranteed by the Charter, and an almost infinite number of factual situations may arise in respect of these. Some limits on rights and freedoms protected by the Charter will be more serious than others in terms of the nature of the right or freedom violated, the extent of the violation, and the degree to which the measures which impose the limit trench upon the integral principles of a free and democratic society. Even if an objective is of sufficient importance, and the first two elements of the proportionality test are satisfied, it is still possible that, because of the severity of the deleterious effects of a measure on individuals or groups, the measure will not be justified by the purposes it is intended to serve. The more severe the deleterious effects of a measure, the more important the objective must be if the measure is to be reasonable and demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society” (Oakes, para 71).
With the application of the Oakes test being adaptable to the specific circumstances of each case, reference to a couple other decisions is helpful.
Recently (on January 6, 2026), in Ruck v. City of Mississauga, 2026 ONSC 73 (CanLII) the Ontario Superior Court of Justice struck down sections of the City of Mississauga’s Nuisance Weeds and Tall Grass Control By-law, which prohibited property owners from growing grass over 20 cm in height and having certain nuisance weeds on their property, as unconstitutional infringements on the right to freedom of expression under s. 2(b) of the Charter.
In applying the Oakes test the Court found that the first part of the test had been met, there was a pressing and substantial objective. In applying the second part of the test the Court found that the first component had been met, the limit was rationally connected to the right, but the Mississauga by-law failed the other two components of the test. It was not minimally impairing, nor did it survive the proportionality arm of the Oakes analysis (Ruck, paras 72-86).
In Ramsden v. Peterborough (City), 1993 CanLII 60 (SCC) the Supreme Court of Canada was confronted with the constitutional validity of a municipal by‑law that prohibited all postering on public property. The Court held that while the legislative goals were important, they did not warrant the complete denial of access to a historically and politically significant form of expression.
In applying the Oakes test the Court held that the first part of the test had been met, avoiding aesthetic blight can be a pressing and substantial objective. In applying the second part of the test the Court found the first component was met, the total ban was rationally connected to these objectives, but the second and third components were not met. A complete ban on postering did not restrict expression as little as is reasonably possible. Many alternatives to a complete ban exist. Proportionality between the effects and the objective was not achieved because the benefits of the by‑law were limited while the abrogation of the freedom was total.
APPLICATION TO THE CURRENT PROPOSED BY-LAW
Applying the Oakes test to the proposed Safe Access to Vulnerable Infrastructure By-Law demonstrates that this by-law is both unconstitutional and a bad idea.
PRESSING AND SUBSTANTIAL PURPOSE (1)
There is absolutely a need to create safe spaces. Behaviours such as intimidation, inciting hatred, violence, intolerance, harassment, or discrimination do have negative effects and should not be tolerated.
However, it is unclear what new pressing or substantial need is being addressed?
There are already ample laws in place to address such behaviours.
The Criminal Code already has provisions for the public incitement of hatred, assault, intimidation, criminal harassment, unlawful assembly and rioting.
The City of Winnipeg Traffic By-Law already requires that a parade permit is required to have demonstration or gathering on public streets, and the Manitoba Court of Appeal has found this be a constitutionally justified limit (R v Michalchuk, 2017 MBCA 103 (CanLII)).
The City of Winnipeg Noise Control By-Law addresses nuisance noise.
It is unclear why the proposed By-Law is needed? What pressing and substantial purpose does it seek to remedy?
The proposed By-Law may also have the opposite of the purported effect. It may end up targeting, rather than protecting, marginalized or vulnerable populations due to selective enforcement.
It is therefore arguable if the proposed By-Law has an objective that relates to a pressing and substantial purpose that is of sufficient importance to warrant overriding constitutionally protected rights or freedoms at all, but for argument’s sake let us presume this part of the test is met.
RATIONAL CONNECTION (2A)
The proposed By-Law is not rationally connected to the intended purpose of creating safe spaces, and prohibiting behaviours such as intimidation, inciting hatred, violence, intolerance, harassment, or discrimination.
The definition of “nuisance demonstration” is too broad. It prohibits demonstrations that express objection or disapproval “based on or related to any specified characteristics,” or obstructing the passage of pedestrians or motorists without a permit issued by the City, or the use of amplifiers or microphones without a permit issued by the City.
The use of the words “based on or related to any specified characteristics” would capture, for instance, anti-racism protests or demonstrations. Prohibiting individuals and the public from protesting or demonstrating outside a hospital, library, community centre, school, university, or other designated facilities with respect to alleged mistreatment or discriminatory practices on the basis of specified characteristics is contrary to the purported intents of the act, and thus is not rationally connected.
The use of the word “or” denotes that only one of the three conditions needs to be met. This means for instance, that someone simply amplifying music or a microphone within 100 meters of a designated facility without a permit could be captured by this By-Law. Once again demonstrating that the proposed By-Law is not rationally connected to its intended purpose (nor is the impairment minimal).
As an aside, there is also a formatting and typographical error with respect to the definition of “nuisance demonstration.” The third sub-clause (c) is missing and the definition runs in the next definition for “place of worship.” This is likely an honest error, but it also raises questions with respect to how thoroughly this proposed By-Law has been considered.
The definition of “designated facility” is extremely broad. There is not a clear rationale for why protest and demonstration should be prohibited from these portions of Winnipeg, but not others. If we want to create safe and inclusive spaces, rationally connected measures would target the behaviours or actions not the location, so that we could create safe and inclusive spaces across the entire City.
MINIMAL IMPAIRMENT (2B)
As stated, the definition of “designated facility” is extremely broad. One local blog site, Chromatin.ca, has attempted to map the hundreds, possibly thousands of locations, and estimates that nearly 17% of Winnipeg’s area would be covered by these demonstration bubble zones. As noted, there is not a clear rationale for why these portions of Winnipeg should be “protected spaces” and not others. The net is cast too wide, and so it does not minimally impair rights to expression, and peaceful assembly. As highlighted above, someone simply using an amplified speaker within 100 meters of a designated facility could be captured by this proposed By-Law. Having the measures target behaviours or actions, rather than locations, is a better way to achieve minimal impairment.
In Ruck (para 81) the Court made it clear that identifying minimally impairing by-law standards requires more than a jurisdictional scan. It is not sufficient for a municipality to simply say ‘we are doing what everyone else is doing.’ The municipality needs to meaningfully turn its mind to searching for reasonably minimally impairing solutions to achieve its pressing and substantial objective and lead evidence that demonstrates the same.
It does not appear that the City of Winnipeg has done this. The jurisdictional scan, included as Appendix A, is inadequate. Simply outline what other jurisdictions are doing is not enough (Ruck, para 81).
It should also be noted that the jurisdictional scan identified the Protecting Vulnerable Social Infrastructure By-Law passed by the City of Vaughan in 2024. The jurisdictional scan, however, fails to recognize that this by-law is currently facing a court application filed by the Canadian Civil Liberties Association that challenges the constitutional validity of this very similar by-law.
As a means of limiting litigation risk, it would be wise for the City to at minimum hold off on passing any similar by-laws until after a decision is rendered with respect to the Vaughan by-law, and tailor any by-laws in accordance with any guidance that that decision might provide.
PROPORTIONALITY (2C)
Rights to protest and demonstrate, is the bedrock to a functioning democratic society. The By-Law proposes serious infringements on Charter protected rights. It is unlikely to pass the proportionality balancing test given the severity of the deleterious effects and the overbroad nature of the proposed By-Law. The stakes are simply too high, and so the onus on the City will be similarly high.
CONCLUSION
This proposed By-Law should not be passed. It is debatable if one is needed at all, but at minimum significant revisions are needed in order for this by-law to serve its intended purpose as well as meet the requirements of justification under the Charter.
Should you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to contact me.
James Beddome
Executive Director
Manitoba Eco-Network Inc./Reseau Du Manitoba Inc.
W: 204-947-6511
C: 204-995-2637 (99-JAMES)
E: executivedirector@mbeconetwork.org
As the Policy Advocacy Director of the Manitoba Eco-Network, I submit these comments on behalf of our organization in opposition of the draft Safe Access to Vulnerable Infrastructure By-Law. The need for a by-law to protect “vulnerable infrastructure” has not been adequately established by the City of Winnipeg, nor does the proposed by-law provide any insight into this perceived need. Instead, the proposed by-law seems to be entirely focused on creating unnecessary barriers and legal consequences for citizens seeking to exercise their Charter protected democratic rights.
The Manitoba Eco-Network is a non-profit registered charity which seeks to strengthen Manitoba’s environmental community with the goal of protecting our environment for the benefit of current and future generations. The Eco-Network facilitates connections, engages in advocacy opportunities, and undertakes community-based research that promotes meaningful public participation in environmental governance processes.
We serve as an umbrella for environmental non-governmental organizations across the province. We build capacity and support grassroots organization’s participation in the environmental community, we celebrate positive environmental actions that happen within Manitoba, and work to elevate the voices of all those within our community.
Peaceful public protests, such as rallies, round dances, and bike jams, among other activities, are an important and valuable way for concerned citizens and public interest organizations to raise public awareness and inspire change. For example, the global climate movement was inspired by Swedish activist Greta Thunberg who started Friday’s for Future as a student strike for climate in 2018. This small action from a high-school student has subsequently grown into an international movement seeking stronger environmental protections and better climate policy, and inspired many past and ongoing peaceful climate demonstrations in Manitoba.
Instead of protecting the public and inspiring lawful protests, we believe the proposed Safe Access to Vulnerable Infrastructure By-law will actually cause public harm by creating large protest-free zones throughout the city that will diminish the ability of Manitobans to protest anywhere in Winnipeg, not just in close proximity to “vulnerable infrastructure”.
The definition of “nuisance demonstrations” proposed in the by-law is too broad, as it captures any in-person protest or demonstration that does any one of the following:
For example, one of the “specified characteristics” under the first part of the definition is “source of income”. This would have a chilling effect on any environmental protest aimed at divestment in fossil fuels, which is an important issue in the environmental community.
The proposed prohibition of “nuisance demonstrations” within 100 meters of designated facilities is also problematic as this captures a large number of locations across Winnipeg, including cemeteries, community centres, schools, cultural centres, healthcare facilities, hospitals, libraries, place of worship, and post-secondary institutions. When mapped out, the overlapping 100 meter buffers create entire protest exclusion zones, particularly in the downtown area. There are also a number of locations unintentionally included in these proposed exclusion zones, such as the offices of elected political officials, that happen to be located near community centres, schools, and other facilities that would be considered a “designated facility”. Thus, there is significant potential to limit peaceful protests that do not intentionally target a designated facility, just happen to be located nearby.
The Manitoba Eco-Network does not tolerate or condone intimidation, inciting hatred, violence, intolerance, harassment, or discrimination. The peaceful assembly we support does not include hate speech, violence, riots, or attempts to physically impede or blockade lawful activities. When these problematic actions occur, there are already adequate laws to protect citizens and punish those who behave in an unlawful manner. There is no need for this proposed by-law as a means of legal protection, thus, we can only infer that the City’s intention is to limit the rights of their citizens to peacefully protest. The overly broad definitions of “nuisance demonstrations” and "specified characteristics" discussed above, among other problems with the language of this by-law, will serve to prohibit a much broader range of public discourse than just hate speech.
This includes the advocacy actions of elementary, high-school and post-secondary students, our leaders of tomorrow, who will be limited in their ability to undertake protest activities at their own educational institutions, which would be captured under the “designated facility” definition. In the spirit of intergenerational equity and environmental justice, we should be creating space for youth advocates and encouraging them to speak up about the issues that concern them. As Greta Thunberg has shown the world, a small student-led local action can have positive global consequences.
There are also important issues, such as ongoing racism in our healthcare system, that do not seem to be addressed by government until the public loudly speaks up. For example, public action in response to tragic and unfortunate situations, such as the deaths of Brian Sinclair in the Health Sciences Centre emergency waiting room in 2013, and Joyce Echaquan at Joliette hospital in Montreal in 2020, drew attention to problems with systemic racism in the healthcare system towards Indigenous peoples. If passed, the proposed by-law would prohibit protests or demonstrations regarding systemic racism in our healthcare system as this objection or disapproval would be based on specified characteristics. This means people could not hold peaceful protests or demonstrations about systemic racism in the healthcare system within 100 meters of healthcare facilities, hospitals, or universities, as they would be considered a "nuisance demonstration".
Another example of a valid public action that could be prevented by this proposed by-laws is a bike jam, where numerous cyclists gather to ride together with amplified music. This serves not only as a means of having fun, it also serves to raise awareness and make an expression about the benefits of cycling for health, environmental protection, and smart city planning. In accordance with the proposed By-Law, if the bike jam came within 100 meters of hundreds, if not thousands, of designated facilities across Winnipeg this would be a breach of the proposed by-law simply because they are playing amplified music.
These are just a couple of examples of how the proposed Safe Access to Vulnerable Infrastructure By-law is too broad and will create unnecessary barriers for citizens seeking to undertake lawful protests in the City of Winnipeg. You will undoubtedly hear more examples during the meeting.
Overall, the Manitoba Eco-Network recommends that the EPC should reject the proposed by-law, for the many reasons discussed above. There are also ongoing legal challenges to other similar by-laws in Canada, such as the challenge initiated by the Canadian Civil Liberties Association of a by-law passed in Vaughn, Ontario, that could inspire similar action in Manitoba if the proposed by-law is passed. We feel it prudent for Winnipeg to at least wait until Courts provide guidance on the constitutionality of these types of by-laws before enacting its own.