The use of the Emergency Measures Act to end the truckers’ convoy crisis that paralyzed Ottawa in the winter of 2022 was deemed illegal by the Federal Court.
In a long-awaited decision, Justice Richard Mosley maintains that the Trudeau government’s decision to impose emergency measures for nine days was “unreasonable” and constitutes a violation of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
“The reasons given to justify the decision to declare a state of emergency do not meet the requirements of the Emergencies Act and some of the temporary measures adopted to deal with the demonstrations contravened the provisions of the Canadian Charter of rights and freedoms,” wrote Judge Richard Mosley in his decision made public Tuesday. The freezing of bank accounts and credit cards posed a problem, according to the judge.
Even if it recognizes that the occupation of the downtown core of the federal capital and the blockade of Canada-United States border crossings were “worrying” issues, the Federal Court considers that the minimum threshold of national crisis required was not not reached for the government to proclaim a “public order emergency”.
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau had invoked the law to try to end the Freedom Convoy protests that lasted weeks in 2022 and blocked the streets of downtown Ottawa and several border crossings.
It was the first time that this law, which replaced the War Measures Act, had been used since its adoption in 1988. The emergency measures also gave additional powers to law enforcement, such as freezing people. bank accounts and to tow heavy trucks of protesters without going through administrative and legal mazes.
The Trudeau government will appeal the decision, indicated Federal Justice Minister Arif Virani after reiterating his confidence in the courts.
“We continue to be convinced that we made the right decision,” said Deputy Prime Minister Chrystia Freeland. The decision was taken “reluctantly”, but national security, including the country’s economic stability, was at risk, she argued.
At the time, downtown Ottawa, near Parliament, had been paralyzed by several hundred trucks for several weeks.
“I’m sad that we had this situation in Canada, very, very sad, but we had this situation. We had a serious, serious threat to security,” she explained in a press briefing, repeating that the “threat was real”.
The Minister of Public Security Dominic LeBlanc, for his part, recalled “the context” of two years ago, when two homemade bombs and 36,000 bullets were found by the police authorities.
He also took care to point out that Ontario Premier Doug Ford supported invoking the Emergencies Act. Prime Minister François Legault, for his part, opposed the Trudeau government applying the exceptional law on the east side of the Ottawa River.
Official Opposition Leader Pierre Poilievre was quick to condemn the government, accusing the Prime Minister of “provoking the crisis by dividing people. “. “He then violated the rights guaranteed by the Charter by illegally repressing citizens,” he wrote on his social networks.
“Ultra vires” and “unreasonable”
The matter was brought to the attention of the courts in particular by the Canadian Civil Liberties Association (CCLA), the Canadian Constitution Foundation and other groups of individuals deeming this law unacceptable.
“We have succeeded in the name of CCLA. The Federal Court ruled that the decision to declare the Emergency Measures Act was ultra vires and unreasonable and that the measures violated the Charter,” reacted on the X network (formerly Twitter) lawyer Ewa Krajewska, who represents the CCLA in this case. “The CCF is delighted that the Federal Court of Canada accepted its arguments according to which the use of the Emergency Measures Act was unreasonable and unconstitutional,” wrote the Canadian Constitution Foundation.
This decision by the Federal Court comes almost a year after the tabling of the report of the public inquiry led by Commissioner Paul Rouleau. The use of the Emergency Measures Act was “appropriate” and that “the very high threshold to be respected to invoke the law was reached,” concluded Judge Rouleau.