Canadian Criminal Law/Offences/Causing a Disturbance

Proof of the Offence
subsection (a) The crown should prove:
 * 1) the identity of the accused as culprit
 * 2) the jurisdiction in which the incident occurred (neighbourhood, city/town, and province)
 * 3) the time and date of the incident
 * 4) the commission of one of the enumerated acts:
 * 5) fighting,
 * 6) screaming,
 * 7) shouting,
 * 8) swearing,
 * 9) singing,
 * 10) using insulting or obscene language,
 * 11) being drunk, or
 * 12) impeding or molesting other persons
 * 13) the act causes a disturbance
 * 14) the disturbance is in or near a public place.

subsection (b) The crown should prove:
 * 1) the identity of the accused as culprit
 * 2) the jurisdiction in which the incident occurred (neighbourhood, city/town, and province)
 * 3) the time and date of the incident
 * 4) loiters in a public place and
 * 5) in any way obstructs persons who are in that place

Interpretation
A disturbance must be more than mere emotional upset or annoyance. The disturbance must be foreseeable as a consequence from the act.

The actus reus of the offence involving obscene language requires that the obscene language cause an externally manifested disturbance.

Shouting does not include amplification by a device such as a megaphone.

Swearing includes the use of bad, obscene or offensive language.

Disturbance requires more than merely an observing crowd or a crowd shouting anti-police sentiment as officers make arrests.

An officer's belief that the accused's language directed at them was vulgar, aggressive and inappropriate alone is insufficient.

"Loitering" must be an action or inaction without purpose. Simply standing around is not sufficient.