Alberta Court of Appeal upholds pastor’s library disturbance conviction

Law360 Canada (November 12, 2025, 9:35 AM EST) --

John L. Hill

As expected at most libraries, the Seton branch of the Calgary Public Library permits activity and conversation at a speaking volume. There are designated quiet areas and rooms reserved for programming.

However, at 11:15 a.m. on Feb. 25, 2023, Calgary police attended the library to investigate a noisy incident and charged Derek Scott Reimer, 36, of Calgary, in connection with what police described as a hate-motivated crime. Reimer, a pastor with Mission 7 Ministries, faced one count of causing a disturbance under Criminal Code s. 175(1)(a)(i) and one count of mischief under s. 430(1)(d).

The incident occurred during the library’s Reading with Royalty event, a children’s program hosted by drag performers. It is supposed to be a family-friendly story-reading event led by members of the local drag community. Critics say such gatherings contribute to the “sexualization” or “grooming” of children.

Reimer entered the room where the story reading was taking place shouting protests. He approached the front, disrupting the event. Some children cried, adults appeared shaken, and the program was shortened. Participants forcibly removed him, after which he continued shouting outside, calling a performer a “pervert” and the program a “perversion.” Staff and security followed him until the police arrived.

At trial (R. v. Reimer, 2024 ABCJ 188), Reimer was acquitted on both counts. The court held that while Reimer shouted, the Crown failed to prove that this caused an externally manifested disturbance as required by R. v. Lohnes, [1992] S.C.J. No. 6 (SCC). Inside and outside the room, library patrons were not prevented from using the space as usual; any disruption might have been caused by others’ reactions rather than the applicant’s shouting itself. On the mischief charge, the library’s operations were unaffected. The branch remained open. Staff performed their duties, and Reimer’s conduct was not shown to be “wrongful.”

The Crown successfully appealed the acquittals. The appeal judge found the trial judge had misapplied the law by isolating the shouting and language from their context (movement, tone, setting and foreseeable reactions). The trial judge had failed to consider the program’s disruption, emotional impact on children and staff, and the altered order of events. He also applied an unduly narrow definition of “disturbance,” and he erred on the mischief count by focusing only on library operations rather than on patrons’ use and enjoyment of the property. The acquittals were set aside, and a new trial was ordered.

Nonetheless, Reimer sought leave to appeal (R. v. Reimer, 2025 ABCA 366), raising two issues: (a) regarding Causing a Disturbance, he argued that the law was unclear as to whether the disturbance must be caused solely by specific conduct (e.g., shouting) or if it could also include foreseeable consequences of that conduct. The Court of Appeal rejected this, holding that Lohnes already settled the issue: a disturbance must be an overt interference with the normal use of a public place, and the act itself (or its foreseeable effects) can constitute that disturbance. The appeal judge had correctly applied Lohnes in context.

And (b), regarding the mischief charge, he argued that because the charge named the Calgary Public Library Board as the victim, it was improper to consider impacts on library users. Reimer conceded that courts have rejected a distinction between property owners and their invitees for the purpose of determining whether an accused has disrupted the use and enjoyment of property: Regina v. Biggin, [1980] O.J. No. 3758 (Ont. C.A.); R. v. Plamondon, 2015 ABPC 265. This argument was raised for the first time on appeal. The court held that the law does not distinguish between property owners and their invitees for mischief purposes, so the argument was neither reasonably arguable nor was it raised below.

Neither judge below identified nor addressed this argument in any way. The Appeal Court recognized that the deprivation of the right to make a full answer and defence is a serious and context-sensitive allegation. Since it was not raised below, it is unlikely that an Appeal Court would have a proper basis on which to address the issue as it was now framed (Quan v. Cusson, 2009 SCC 62, citing Lamb v. Kincaid, (1907), 38 S.C.R. 516; R. v. Warsing, [1998] 3 S.C.R. 579; Performance Industries Ltd. v. Sylvan Lake Golf & Tennis Club Ltd., 2002 SCC 19; 681210 Alberta Ltd. v. Hunter, 2012 ABCA 83.)

Given that the law would not distinguish between the library and its staff and users, it was not clear to the Appeal Court how the particularization of the charge could have affected Reimer’s defence or either judge’s analysis. The Court of Appeal was not satisfied that an appeal on that proposed ground would be reasonably arguable.

The Alberta Court of Appeal, having found no error of law, no unsettled legal question and no issue of public importance, denied the application for leave to appeal.

John L. Hill practised and taught prison law until his retirement. He holds a JD from Queen’s and an LLM in constitutional law from Osgoode Hall. His most recent book, Acts of Darkness (Durvile & UpRoute Books), was released July 1. Hill is also the author of Pine Box Parole: Terry Fitzsimmons and the Quest to End Solitary Confinement (Durvile & UpRoute Books) and The Rest of the (True Crime) Story (AOS Publishing). Contact him at johnlornehill@hotmail.com.

The opinions expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the author’s firm, its clients, Law360 Canada, LexisNexis Canada or any of its or their respective affiliates. This article is for general information purposes and is not intended to be and should not be taken as legal advice.

Interested in writing for us? To learn more about how you can add your voice to Law360 Canada, contact Analysis Editor Peter Carter at peter.carter@lexisnexis.ca or call 647-776-6740.