Trial of the “freedom convoy” | The Emergency Measures Act exempted legal protests

(Ottawa) Defense lawyers for two organizers of the “freedom convoy” continued to strengthen their position Wednesday on the central question of their criminal trial: whether the 2022 protest that blocked Canada’s national capital for weeks was or was not a legal expression of the rights guaranteed by the Charter.

Chris Barber and Tamara Lich, two of the protest’s most prominent leaders, maintained that their sole purpose throughout the convoy was to organize and supervise a peaceful and legal protest, and that they encouraged people to respect the law.

Both are charged with mischief and intimidation for their role in the protests and they also face multiple charges involving advising others to break the law.

They helped bring thousands of large trucks and other vehicles to Ottawa, accompanied by massive crowds, as part of last year’s disruptive protest against COVID-19 public health restrictions, vowing not to withdraw until the federal government complies with their demands.

On February 14, after weeks of protests in the shadow of Parliament Hill, as well as several similar, but unaffiliated, protests at the Canada-US border and in provincial legislatures, the federal government declared a state of emergency in matters of public order. This was the first use of Emergency Measures Act since it replaced the War Measures Act in 1988.

Mr. Barber’s lawyer, Diane Magas, read the emergency proclamation aloud in court Wednesday.

“We further clarify that temporary special measures which may be necessary to deal with the emergency, as provided by the Governor in Council, are measures to regulate or prohibit any public assembly – other than defense, protest or dissidence,” recited M^e Stores.

“It’s a very key factor, in my opinion,” she told the judge.

M^e Magas made this argument in response to the Crown’s allegation that Mr. Barber and Ms.^me Lich collaborated so closely that they should be considered co-conspirators, which would mean the evidence against one of them would apply to both.

The defense says the Crown should prove it conspired to break the law, rather than organizing a peaceful, lawful protest.

“There is not a single shred of evidence, direct or indirect, to suggest an illegal common purpose” involving Mr. Barber, Mr.^e Magas in court Wednesday.

The Crown has not yet said when it alleges the plot began or who was involved other than Mr. Barber and Ms.^me Lich. The Crown is due to make its case later on Wednesday.

M^e Magas presented the court with a timeline of events during the “freedom convoy” protest, including examples of times when Mr Barber encouraged protesters to follow police advice and leave the city center from Ottawa to establish a camp outside the city.

In an exchange of private text messages, a protester told Mr Barber that he had arrived at a gathering area on Coventry Road, outside the city centre, during the second week of the protest.

“Okay, stay there or go to exit 88,” Mr. Barber replied, referring to a rural staging area about 45 kilometers from Ottawa. Both assembly areas had been recommended by police.