Court finds that Trudeau went too far by using the emergency law to end the blockade

A Canadian court ruled that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's use of the country's emergency law to end a truck convoy protest that paralyzed the capital Ottawa two years ago was an unjustified violation of civil rights, including the protection against unreasonable searches and seizures. In some cases also freedom of expression.

The decision by the Federal Court of Canada also found that the freezing of bank accounts of people involved in the protest was also unjustified, but rejected arguments that the government had violated a variety of other rights, including those related to peaceful assembly.

The decision, which will be appealed, marked the first time a court has reprimanded Mr Trudeau over his handling of the protest, which began on January 28, 2022 and lasted for much of February, sparking copycat protests in other countries . provinces, including Alberta and British Columbia, as well as in France.

The protests in Ottawa, initially sparked by a Covid vaccine mandate for cross-border truckers, made most streets in the city's center impassable, clogging them with parked trucks. Six days after Trudeau's government introduced emergency powers, a massive force of police officers from across the country finished clearing the streets. About 230 people were arrested during the protest.

In his ruling, Judge Richard G. Mosley wrote that while the protests “reflected an unacceptable disruption of public order,” the government failed to meet several tests for using the emergency law, which expanded police powers to include tow trucks forcing drivers to help clear the streets.

Judge Mosley said evidence from the two civil rights organizations that brought the lawsuit against the government convinced him that the “decision to issue the proclamation did not exhibit the hallmarks of reasonableness – justification, transparency and intelligibility – and was not justified in relation to the relevant factual and legal limitations.”

“The harassment of residents, workers and business owners in downtown Ottawa and the general violation of the right to peaceful use of public spaces there, while deeply reprehensible, did not amount to serious violence or the threat of serious violence,” he wrote , noting that even a blockade where police said they found a weapons cache was resolved peacefully. “The damage done to Canada's economy, trade and commerce was very real and concerning, but did not constitute a threat or the use of serious force against persons or property.”

The court's ruling could be largely symbolic. It is unclear whether people affected by the Emergencies Act, including those who have had their bank accounts frozen, can file lawsuits against the government and receive compensation, said Ewa Krajewska, a civil litigator who argued on behalf of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association. . And criminal prosecutions, which do not fall under the Emergency Act, will not be affected.

Chrystia Freeland, the deputy prime minister, said the government would appeal the ruling.

“I want to take a moment to remind Canadians how serious the situation was in our country when we made that decision,” Ms. Freeland told reporters in Montreal.

Pierre Poilievre, the leader of the conservative opposition who brought coffee and donuts to protesters during the blockade, condemned Mr. Trudeau on Xin which he wrote that he had 'violated the highest law of the land with the emergency law'.

He added that Mr. Trudeau “caused the crisis by sowing division among the people. He then violated Charter rights to illegally oppress citizens.” The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which protects the rights of freedom of expression and others, is part of the country's constitution.

“The invocation of the Emergencies Act is one of the worst examples of government overreach during the pandemic,” Joanna Baron, executive director of the Canadian Constitution Foundation, said in a statement. The Calgary-based organization, which has supported libertarian causes, filed the lawsuit along with the Canadian Civil Liberties Association and several people involved in the protest.

They successfully argued that the government should not have used the law and that it had violated Canadians' rights against unreasonable search and seizure.

But the decision largely rejected some of their other claims, including that the protesters' freedoms of assembly and travel and their rights to speech had been violated — although the judge did say that protesters who did not occupy the streets or disobey other laws were still allowed to exercise their rights. had rights. freedom of expression violated.

Speaking on behalf of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, Ms. Krajewska said the group is “very pleased with a decision that provides a robust framework for when the law needs to be invoked in the future.” She added: “They think it's a victory for democracy and they think it's a victory for the rule of law.”

After receiving parliamentary approval, the government used the emergency measure for eight days before withdrawing it once Ottawa's streets were cleared.

Last February, an Ontario Court of Appeal judge reached a conclusion that contradicted Judge Mosley's findings while conducting a legally mandated public inquiry. That investigation concluded that the government was justified in using emergency powers to end the blockade, given the failure of police efforts and the lack of political coordination.