🔴 Website 👉 https://u-s-news.com/
Telegram 👉 https://t.me/usnewscom_channel
The Trucker Protest was “No Threat To National Security.”
The Federal Court of Appeal has determined that the Liberal government improperly and illegally invoked the Emergencies Act (Canada’s equivalent to martial law) to disperse the convoy demonstrations in downtown Ottawa in February 2022. This ruling, issued on Friday, rejected the federal government’s challenge to a 2024 lower court judgment that declared former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s invocation of the act unjustified and a violation of demonstrators’ rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
The three-judge panel emphasized that, despite the inconvenience and disruption caused by the protests, these events did not rise to the level of a genuine threat to national security. The judges stated that cabinet lacked sufficient reasonable grounds to conclude such a threat existed, thereby failing to meet the strict statutory requirements for invoking the legislation.
“There was no evidence that the lives, health or safety of the people living in Ottawa were endangered (as annoying, stressful and concerning as the protests were),” the decision noted.
The case originated from legal challenges brought by organisations including the Canadian Civil Liberties Association (CCLA) and the Canadian Constitution Foundation, which contested the government’s declaration of a public order emergency. In his 2024 ruling, retired Federal Court Justice Richard Mosley found the government’s decision deficient in rationale, openness, and clarity.
During the appeal hearing last February, government lawyers contended that the lower court had applied retrospective judgment unfairly and downplayed the risks. They maintained that the protests represented a serious security issue and that the measures implemented under the Emergencies Act were limited, reasonable, and short-lived.
However, the appeal court sided with Justice Mosley’s assessment, highlighting a lack of thoroughness in processes such as the freezing of bank accounts, where financial institutions were expected to rely on potentially unreliable sources, including media reports or social media information. The ruling also criticised the government’s broad interpretation of “threats to the security of Canada,” warning that it could potentially suppress legitimate protests targeting infrastructure such as pipelines or railways.
Howard Sapers, executive director of the CCLA, described the outcome as a significant and landmark victory for the rule of law and the protection of rights for all Canadians. He noted that while the exceptional authorities granted under the Emergencies Act might be warranted in truly dire situations, they also carry serious risks to democracy and the rule of law. “This ruling establishes important precedent,” he added.
A spokesperson for the Minister of Public Safety indicated that the government is carefully examining the decision and considering its options, which may include an appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada. “We continue to prioritise the protection and security of Canadians against risks to public order and national security,” the statement said.
The demonstrations started primarily as opposition to COVID-19 vaccine mandates for cross-border truck drivers and the ArriveCan digital surveillance app, which was significantly over budget and became a financial scandal in its own right. For several weeks, thousands converged on Ottawa, many with heavy trucks parked in front of the Canadian Parliament buildings. Local businesses that had been forced to close were threatened by the City of Ottawa with severe bylaw fines and penalties if they did not remain closed due to the protests, often without clear explanation.
To date, there has been no credible evidence provided to substantiate the government’s assertions and those of many government and Liberal Party staffers, most of whom live in Ottawa that there was any significant violence or negative effects on the city beyond the disruptions themselves. In fact, preliminary police data indicated that street crime had actually decreased in the affected downtown district during the protest period, as many truckers acted as good Samaritans to the community, even setting up amenities like inflatable hot tubs and bouncy castles. Many people who attended and supported the protest were people of faith who gathered with their churches and synagogues, displaying a far stronger sense of community than most politicians in the government at the time.
On February 14, 2022, the government invoked the Emergencies Act the first use of the legislation since it replaced the War Measures Act in 1988 granting police expanded powers to clear protesters and make arrests, while also authorizing the freezing of financial assets linked to the demonstrations.
The ruling further determined that certain economic measures violated freedom of expression under the Charter by being excessively broad in scope, affecting individuals who intended only to engage in peaceful protest without posing any risk of violence.
A core issue in the legal challenges (and the preceding public inquiry) was the precise meaning of “threats to the security of Canada” under the Act, which requires that ordinary laws be insufficient to address the crisis. The legislation references the criteria set out in the CSIS Act, such as serious violence against persons or property, espionage, foreign interference, or violent attempts to subvert the government.
The government argued for a broader interpretation that would encompass major economic impacts. However, the appeal court rejected this approach, stating that it could undermine the Act’s safeguards against overreach and potentially stifle legitimate protests.
Former CSIS director David Vigneault testified at the 2022 public inquiry that he supported the invocation of the Emergencies Act, even though the convoy did not meet his agency’s strict definition of a national security threat.
The mandatory Rouleau Commission, led by Commissioner Paul Rouleau, reached a different conclusion in early 2023. It found that the threshold for invoking the Emergencies Act had been met, citing breakdowns in policing and failures in federal-provincial coordination. Rouleau described the transition from lawful protest to lawlessness as culminating in a national emergency, though he expressed reluctance in reaching this finding and acknowledged that the factual basis was not overwhelming.
The question now is what the legal remedy is for those of us who were targeted by the Canadian government? Those of us who had our bank accounts frozen, our businesses destroyed, our lives ruined? What is the legal remedy? What punishment should Trudeau and the members of his government be subjected to?
This content is courtesy of, and owned and copyrighted by, https://www.thedailybell.com and its author. This content is made available by use of the public RSS feed offered by the host site and is used for educational purposes only. If you are the author or represent the host site and would like this content removed now and in the future, please contact USSANews.com using the email address in the Contact page found in the website menu.