The police constantly blur the line between legal protest and illegal activity depending on the type of protest and who it is against. It is very difficult to take anything they say seriously.

Gee Tyler, most adults have no problem distinguishing between legal and illegal. Deep down, you know the difference too. But then it wouldn't be fun if you paid attention to your conscious would it? Funny how the left is the most guilty of attacks on others.

"Enjoyment" in the context of the law has a specific meaning: the exercise of rights. In this case it refers to the exercise of right to make use of private property. There's a long legal debate of subjective vs. objective meanings here, but it's irrelevant for the VPD's purposes as enjoyment does not apply in any sense to commercial properties.

As a restaurant is a commercial property, the relevant word there is "operation"; the protestors may not interfere in the operation of the restaurant. Unfortunately for PiDGiN's diners they have no right to enjoy their meals there, simply to get them and eat them. They have no legal protection from "shouting, screaming, or swearing."

This is just a desperate action forced out of the VPD by the Mayor's office.

The Pidgin protest has been an interesting experience. On one hand, it has in fact deterred me from dining there. I have no wish to subject myself and my loved ones to mockery, catcalls, and uncomfortable surveillance to my vehicle merely for the curiousity about Makoto Ono's cooking.

On the other hand, the intimidation has eroded my respect for DTES "social justice" activists who cynically inflame a NIMBYism they would find abhorrent in any other neighbourhood, and who fallaciously attribute the very real mental health struggles of fetal-alcohol damaged addicts to mere classism.

By abdicating the moral high ground, the activists cannot have more thoroughly ensured the unrepentent, even vengeful gentrification of the DTES were they themselves to operate the steamrollers.

Hey Tyler, what the cops are saying is pretty clear: "protest in a peaceful manner or face potential consequences". I understand the protesters are pissed off and are making their point. But why should others suffer for what some believe? If I choose to go and spend my hard earned money on dining out with someone I choose to be with, that's my choice, not that of someone from a lunatic fringe.

What Tyler is referring to is that normal picketing conduct, such as chanting / shouting and walking back and forth in front of the business, will most likely now be deemed illegal. The problem with that is that it is not at all illegal.
It is very apparent that Vision, and Pidgin, are starting to feel very uncomfortable about folks protesting outside of the restaurant.

The VPD has shown no interest in a threat of property destruction and personal injury that staff of PiDGiN directed at me while I was acting as a reporter at the scene. With reference to my camera: "I'll crack that thing over your head."

"...[W]ho fallaciously attribute the very real mental health struggles of fetal-alcohol damaged addicts to mere classism."

Actually, those issues do intersect with class. For example, fetal-alcohol syndrome is actually -less- a result of alcohol consumption, and more a result of poor nutrition in combination with addiction-levels of drinking. Poverty is one of the largest indicators whether a child will be born with FAS, but our society has scapegoated alcohol, which then cuts off all potential discussion of the classed dimensions of these problems.

Issues of social class and mental health are also deeply connected, and are often mutually reinforcing of one another as well. People who are mentally unwell are more likely to live in poverty, and living in poverty can severely deteriorate one's mental health...

So it's not so much a fallacy, as a hard fact that they're pointing to! :)

The whole picket would now seem to be a publicity stunt by members of COPE desperately looking to make themselves relevant before the next civic election. Even the CCAP has purged and at least pretended to cut them loose. Remarkably counter-productive. I am curious though why the accompanying photo for this story is of bored cops in front of a Starbucks from three years ago. Suggesting the police are actively guarding the restaurant?

OMG:

The picture is of police because the article is about police.
If you would prefer an up-to-date photo of Const. Montague, I'm sure it could be arranged (and I'm sure he would be flattered).