They say that when interpreting a provision, one must look at the context and the question of whether or not the same ground is covered elsewhere, and assume that it means to cover something different. There is this point of view that the “this shall not apply” clause added to a provision practically identical to an existing provision, Article 500, proves that it is intended to go after street marches. Is this really so or is the difference something else?
This is 500 and 500.1 with the differences in bold.
500. No person may occupy the roadway, shoulder or any other part of the right of way of or approaches to a public highway or place a vehicle or obstacle thereon so as to obstruct vehicular traffic on the highway or access to such a highway, except where so authorized by law.
A peace officer may remove or cause to be removed at the expense of the owner any thing used in contravention of this section. The peace officer may also seize such a thing; the provisions respecting things seized in the Code of Penal Procedure (chapter C-25.1) apply, with the necessary modifications, to things so seized.
For the purposes of this section, a public highway includes a road being used as an alternate route for traffic diverted from a public highway even if the alternate route is situated on private property, and a road under the administration of or maintained by the Ministère des Ressources naturelles et de la Faune.
1986, c. 91, s. 500; 1990, c. 83, s. 180; 2000, c. 31, s. 4; 2003, c. 8, s. 6; 2006, c. 3, s. 35.
500.1. No person may, during a concerted action intended to obstruct in any way vehicular traffic on a public highway, occupy the roadway, shoulder or any other part of the right of way of or approaches to the highway or place a vehicle or obstacle thereon so as to obstruct vehicular traffic on the highway or access to such a highway.
A peace officer may remove or cause to be removed, at the expense of the owner, any thing used in contravention of this section. The peace officer may also seize such a thing; the provisions respecting things seized in the Code of Penal Procedure (chapter C-25.1) apply, with the necessary modifications, to things so seized.
This section does not apply during parades or other popular events previously authorized by the person responsible for the maintenance of the public highway provided the highway used is closed to traffic or is under the control of a police force.
For the purposes of this section, a public highway includes a road being used as an alternate route for traffic diverted from a public highway even if the alternate route is situated on private property, and a road under the administration of or maintained by the Ministère des Ressources naturelles et de la Faune.
2000, c. 31, s. 5; 2003, c. 8, s. 6; 2006, c. 3, s. 35.
All right, so what are the differences?
500.1 requires that the interference with traffic occur “during a concerted action intended to obstruct in any way vehicular traffic on a public highway”.
500 envisages an exception “where so authorized by law.” 500.1 envisages an exception for “parades or other popular events previously authorized by the person responsible for the maintenance of the public highway provided the highway used is closed to traffic or is under the control of a police force.”
Why was 500.1 put into force? They said it was because of coordinated truck blockades. What does this achieve that 500 does not? It envisages the collective aspect, of coordinated truck blockades, this “concerted action intended to obstruct”. Article 500 can deal with individuals blocking the highway just as well as 500.1 can.
If Article 500.1 can be used against street marches, why can’t Article 500 be so used? If I go into the street and block traffic as part of a group, then clearly I can be ticketed for that as an individual interfering with traffic. As Article 500 has no “this does not apply to parades and popular events” clause then demonstrators are ripe pickings for this article, if the intention was to go after demonstrators.
Could it be argued that a constitutional right to demonstrate means that demonstrators are “authorised by law” under Article 500? The Attorney-General of Quebec does not recognise such a right so this can’t be the real difference between the two.
The only answer thus is that 500.1 envisages multiple blockades by people in league. Therefore, to prove someone guilty under 500.1, the Crown should prove that there were multiple blockages and that each of the conspirators were working together. That would mean acquitting everyone who has been ticketed so far…
