Montreal city hall has put a new incivility bylaw into effect, allowing fines of $300 to $1,000 for a first offence against police officers and municipal employees, whilee declining to explain precisely what an insult is.

Repeat offenders can face fines of up to $2,000. Municipal employees may also refuse service to people who are considered threatening, abusive, aggressive, intimidating, harassing, offensive or otherwise insufficiently pleasant for public administration.

The bylaw is live. The definition is still being developed somewhere near a printer that is out of toner.

City hall confirmed Wednesday that whether a statement such as “Sir, your form is nonsense” results in a $300 ticket depends on “the vibe of the counter,” a phrase currently appearing in an internal working document titled Preliminary Considerations Regarding the Interpretation of Human Tone.

The document is not considered final.

“It depends,” said Mireille Gagnon, a fictional municipal clerk at a borough counter in Rosemont–La Petite-Patrie. “If the person says it with a raised voice, it may be an insult. If they say it while holding the form upside down, it may be feedback. If they say it in French, we have a separate discussion.”

The new Montreal bylaw was adopted by city council on Monday in a vote that divided councillors. CBC News reported that the regulation bans insults and other inappropriate behaviour toward police and city employees, with first-offence fines ranging from $300 to $1,000 and subsequent fines reaching $2,000.

The regulation does not provide a working definition of “insult.”

Montreal bylaw takes effect before the vocabulary does

The city has moved quickly to enforce the rule, installing laminated notices at municipal buildings, police stations and several locations where residents are traditionally required to stand in line while holding documents that may or may not be the correct documents.

The notices advise visitors to remain respectful and avoid offensive behaviour. A smaller notice beneath them asks residents to avoid “facial expressions that could reasonably be interpreted as editorial.”

At one borough counter, a third sign reportedly reads: “Please be patient. Your emotional classification is being processed.”

City employee Jean-Sébastien Roy said the lack of a definition was not preventing enforcement because employees had been instructed to use judgment.

“People understand what an insult is,” Roy said. “They also understand what a parking ticket is. Sometimes they understand both at the same time. The important thing is to remain calm and document the atmosphere.”

The city’s position has attracted criticism from residents, civil-liberties groups and anyone who has ever attempted to correct a municipal employee’s understanding of their own form.

The Montreal Gazette’s coverage and commentary noted concerns about freedom of expression and the broad language used in the regulation. Cult MTL also reported on the new ban covering police officers, elected officials and city employees.

City hall said it would release further guidance “when the guidance has finished guiding itself.”

The counter-vibe clause enters municipal law

According to a preliminary internal document viewed by The Real Fake Times, clerks are being asked to consider several factors before issuing a ticket:

• Whether the resident’s voice was “sharp, flat, theatrical or aggressively reasonable.”
• Whether the statement was directed at a person, a process, a form or the general concept of government.
• Whether the resident apologized immediately.
• Whether the resident apologized in a way that sounded “administratively sincere.”
• Whether other people in the lineup looked entertained.
• Whether the clerk had already taken a lunch break.
• Whether the insult occurred before or after the resident was told to fill out a different form.

The document also introduces a three-level assessment system: Probably Fine, Depends on Vibe and Appeal Later.

A city employee who spoke on condition that their name be replaced with “Nathalie” said the system was designed to protect workers from abusive conduct without penalizing ordinary frustration.

“We are not trying to fine people for saying the process is confusing,” Nathalie said. “We are trying to determine whether they are saying the process is confusing in a way that makes the counter feel personally responsible for bureaucracy.”

Residents have already begun adapting.

“I said, ‘This lineup is more of a suggestion than a queue,’ and the clerk looked at me for seven seconds,” said Montreal resident Émile Drouin. “Then she asked if I wanted to appeal the look.”

Drouin said he declined because the appeal form required an appointment, two pieces of identification and “a neutral description of the tone used during the original interaction.”

Montreal’s provisional insult price list

City hall has not published an official insult price list. However, an unofficial working schedule circulating among borough employees has begun offering residents a useful estimate of what their words may cost.

The values below are not confirmed municipal charges. They are presented for administrative planning purposes and may change depending on weather, queue length and the clerk’s interpretation of “a certain way.”

• $35: “This lineup is a suggestion, not a queue.” Usually considered harmless unless said while pointing at the lineup.
• $75: “You’re doing your best, presumably.” The word “presumably” may elevate the matter to the Depends on Vibe category.
• $100: “Could someone explain this form in a language the form understands?” Charged only if the form is present.
• $150: “I’ve seen faster forms at the DMV.” The city has not confirmed whether mentioning another government is an aggravating factor.
• $200: “This counter has the energy of a locked vending machine.” Subject to visual assessment and nearby vending-machine availability.
• $300: “Sir, your form is nonsense.” First-offence baseline. No charge if the form is, in fact, nonsense and the clerk agrees privately.
• $450: “I would like to speak to someone who has met this procedure before.” May trigger the Appeal Later classification.
• $600: “Are you new?” Particularly serious if directed at a long-serving employee wearing an identification badge.
• $800: “This is not service; this is an elaborate waiting room.” Charge may be reduced if the resident has been waiting for more than one hour.
• $1,000: “Bless your heart,” delivered sincerely. The sincerity assessment is conducted by a second clerk.
• $1,500: “You dirty muffin!” Classification remains disputed because the phrase contains no identifiable profanity and yet lands as a personal attack. The matter may be escalated to the Department of Bakery Insults for review.
• $2,000: Any statement repeated twice under the escalating-repeat clause. This includes “excuse me,” if the first “excuse me” was deemed adequately heard.

The city’s working document includes a handwritten note beside the $300 category: “Check vibe. Check witnesses. Check whether ‘sir’ was respectful.”

Clerks may refuse service while residents remain technically wrong

The bylaw permits municipal employees to refuse service to people who misbehave. City hall said the measure would allow workers to end interactions that become abusive or unsafe.

In practice, clerks are also expected to determine when a resident is merely frustrated, which has created a new administrative role: the unofficial tone referee.

“We can refuse service if someone crosses the line,” said Gagnon. “The problem is that the line is not painted on the floor. Sometimes it is more of a feeling near the photocopier.”

At the Ahuntsic-Cartierville service centre, one clerk has reportedly begun placing small coloured cards on the counter. Green indicates ordinary impatience. Yellow indicates “possibly personal.” Red indicates that the resident has used the phrase “with all due respect,” which the city considers a known gateway expression.

Residents have been advised to avoid sarcasm, rhetorical questions and prolonged sighing. They have not been advised what to do when a clerk says “that’s not my department” three times in a row.

That question is currently under review by the Municipal Office of Interdepartmental Responsibility.

The bureaucratic uncertainty has already produced the kind of orderly confusion familiar to readers of The Real Fake Times’ report on a woman who accidentally joined a vague Pilates cult, although the Montreal bylaw contains fewer ceremonial robes and more numbered tickets.

Appeals office prepares for phrases that sounded different in context

City hall expects some residents to contest fines, particularly where the alleged insult was delivered with no clear insult attached.

A preliminary appeals process is being prepared. Residents may be asked to provide:

1. The exact words used.
2. The approximate tone.
3. A description of the clerk’s face at the time.
4. The names of witnesses who were not already annoyed.
5. A written explanation of whether “fine” was intended as an adjective, noun or threat to the administrative ecosystem.

A draft appeals form reportedly asks applicants to check one of the following boxes:

• I was criticizing the process.
• I was criticizing the employee.
• I was criticizing both but not in a personal way.
• I was trying to be funny.
• I no longer remember what happened, but I stand by the grammar.

The system has drawn comparisons to other institutions that have replaced human judgment with an object that can be shaken for an answer, including the technology company that replaced its board of directors with Magic 8-Balls.

City clerk Roy rejected that comparison.

“We are not making decisions randomly,” he said. “We are making decisions based on a set of principles that are currently being identified.”

Montreal residents begin speaking in legally neutral sentences

Some residents have responded by developing a new form of municipal French-English diplomacy.

Instead of saying, “This is ridiculous,” residents are reportedly saying, “I am experiencing difficulty aligning with the logic of this procedure.”

Instead of “You lost my application,” they are saying, “The application appears to have entered a different administrative journey.”

Instead of “Are you kidding me?” one resident said she used, “I respectfully request clarification regarding the apparent theatricality of this outcome.”

The clerk accepted the statement but asked her to lower the eyebrows.

The bylaw arrives at a time when Canadian cities are increasingly attempting to regulate the atmosphere around public services. Montreal’s version has supplied immediate material for city hall satire, local government satire and the growing category of funny news articles about forms that possess more rights than the people filling them out.

It also gives residents one more reason to choose their words carefully, particularly when standing under fluorescent lighting with a folder of documents and no idea which window handles birth certificates.

The city has promised additional guidance.

Until then, Montrealers are advised to remain polite, precise and emotionally difficult to classify. The safest sentence at any borough counter may be: “Thank you for clarifying the procedure, although I remain conceptually opposed to it.”

The price of that sentence is currently listed as $0, unless the counter gets a vibe. In which case, the matter will be referred to an internal committee that is expected to meet once the committee’s meeting-request form has been approved.

For further transportation-related administrative confusion, residents may consult the airline that introduced vertical stacking to maximize human density efficiency. For international guidance on keeping disagreements orderly, the World Peace Summit’s punch-to-harmony initiative remains available as a cautionary municipal-adjacent resource.