Pitasanna Shanmugathas is a third-year student at the University of Windsor Faculty of Law.

Montreal-based author and activist Yves Engler was found guilty Friday by Quebec Court Judge Karine Giguère on three charges of harassment and obstruction of justice stemming from an e-mail campaign directed at a Montreal police detective. The verdict could significantly restrict the public’s ability to petition law enforcement officials and challenge police charging decisions. This case is unusual in Canada, as it involves criminal convictions stemming from a coordinated email campaign to a police officer, prompting discussion about the limits of advocacy and free expression under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. 

The charges relate to over 1,600 e-mails sent to Detective Francesca Anna Crivello on February 19, 2025, after Engler publicized her plan to arrest him and encouraged supporters to contact police. Notably, the original harassment charge related to media personality Dahlia Kurtz, which triggered the police investigation, was dropped by prosecutors in July 2025. 

The case originated in the summer of 2024 when Kurtz contacted Montreal police, alleging harassment over Engler’s social media posts criticizing her positions on the Israel-Gaza conflict. In February 2025, Detective Crivello of the Montreal hate crimes unit contacted Engler to inform him she would arrest him the following day on harassment charges related to Kurtz’s complaint. During that call, Crivello indicated she would impose a release condition prohibiting Engler from discussing the case on social media. The detective testified that this condition was “very rare” but necessary given the social media nature of the alleged harassment. 

On February 18, 2025, Engler published an article on his website about the pending arrest and included a link to an Action Network petition form directing supporters to email Crivello. The pre-populated message stated: “The arrest of author Yves Engler for social media posts opposing Israel’s genocide is an abuse of state power. The charges against the father of two young children should be immediately withdrawn.” 

Between 6:39 pm on February 18 and approximately 9:15 am on February 19th, when police installed an email filter, 1,662 emails reached Investigator Crivello’s inbox. In total, investigators identified 1,803 emails bearing the subject line “Drop charges against author Yves Engler.” Engler promoted the campaign across multiple social media platforms, where he has tens of thousands of followers. The judge noted that on X (formerly Twitter) alone, the post generated over 263,000 views within 15 hours. 

The Legal Framework and Verdict 

Engler was convicted on three charges under the Criminal Code: obstructing a peace officer (section 129(a)), attempting to obstruct justice (section 139(2)), and harassment (section 372(2)). 

For the obstruction charge, the prosecution must prove the accused knew the individual was a peace officer executing their duties and either intended to obstruct the officer or foresaw with certainty their actions would do so. Judge Giguère found these elements satisfied, relying on jurisprudence including R.v. Alsager (2016), R.c. Lavin (1990), and R.c. Tortolano (1975). “Given his notoriety on social media,” the judge wrote, “the accused knew or should have anticipated that the response to his request to write would be very large.” 

Detective Crivello testified that the volume of incoming emails prevented her from working on her computer because the system indicated she lacked space each time she tried to write an email. She described feeling “intimidated” and “targeted” because her full name and personal work email were used rather than a generic Montreal police address. The court noted that jurisprudence does not require proof of complete impossibility to work. The judge stated that obstruction occurs if someone commits a voluntary act knowing or foreseeing it will interfere with an officer’s duties, “regardless of whether the accused succeeds or not, or whatever their true motivation.”

On the obstruction of justice charge, the court emphasized the email content “directly attacks the power of police to lay charges.” The judge noted that the emails suggested that if Detective Crivello proceeded with Engler’s arrest, it would constitute an “abuse of power” and would place her “against detractors of Israel’s crimes.” Judge Giguère wrote: “The duty of the investigator is not to take a position in this matter, but to investigate the complaint she received.” 

For the harassment charge, the defense argued that these messages were sent with a lawful excuse under Section 372(3) of the Criminal Code, that the accusation concerning Ms. Kurtz was an abuse of power intended to silence the accused, and he was justified in acting because Kurtz’s accusation was later withdrawn by the prosecutor.  Judge Giguère rejected this argument, stating that “Even if they believe they are in the right, an accused cannot take justice into their own hands by making harassing communications to make their point.” 

The subsequent withdrawal of the Kurtz charges “does not confirm the merit of the mailings,” the judge wrote, noting charges are sometimes dropped for various reasons. “This does not indicate a lack of foundation at the time the charges were laid, and cannot justify, after the fact, delinquent behaviour.” 

Engler’s response and constitutional concerns 

In a comment provided to JURIST, Engler called the judge’s ruling “a blow to the public’s right to petition state officials.”

Shortly after the verdict was handed down, in an interview with Green Party of Quebec leader Alex Tyrrell, Engler disputed the premise that he controlled supporters’ actions: “Whether people emailed the police, that was up to them. I didn’t force anyone to do it. Those individuals who did it of their free will, why are the 4,000 or so people not all viewed as interfering in police affairs or harassing police?” 

On the disruption claim, Engler noted: “The [police] said they had a filter on by 9:15 in the morning of the day they started receiving the emails, maybe an hour into the work day, so this is not a substantial impact. There are a lot of elements to police work that do not involve email.” 

Engler argued the verdict creates disparate treatment for police compared to other public figures, citing “pro-genocide” organizations like Honest Reporting Canada that “often have campaigns emailing journalists, from prominent to student journalists at Concordia University,” without consequence and questioned why the same tactic is criminal when directed at a far more powerful individual like a police investigator enforcing a condition he viewed as unjust. 

Engler warned of broader implications, stating the ruling allows police “to define questioning of their policies as criminal” and argued the trial targeted advocacy methods more broadly, noting “email petition technology … is used widely by all kinds of different groups” with “no violent or abusive language.”

Quebec Green Party leader Alex Tyrrell, in his reaction to the judge’s decision, said that “this seems to be a new precedent because the prosecution was not able to come up with any previous caselaw where somebody has been found guilty as you were for simply sending emails to the police.” 

The case raises questions under Section 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms regarding political expression and the right to petition government officials, particularly whether coordinated email campaigns directed at law enforcement constitute protected political expression or criminal obstruction. 

A sentencing hearing is scheduled for March 4th. Engler’s team has 30 days to file an appeal.