Federal Judge Rules Canada’s Use of Emergency Powers During Freedom Convoy Protests “Unreasonable” and Violating Rights Charter

By Blessing Nweke

In a groundbreaking decision on Tuesday, Federal Judge Richard Mosley declared that Canada’s utilization of emergency powers to quell the anti-government Freedom Convoy protests two years ago was deemed “unreasonable” and a violation of the country’s rights charter. The ruling challenges the government’s authority under the Emergencies Act, prompting an announced appeal from the federal government.

The Emergencies Act, designed to grant additional powers during crises, was invoked by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau on February 14, 2022, amid escalating protests against the government’s Covid-19 vaccine mandate. The “Freedom Convoy” gained global attention as demonstrators, many in trucks, converged around Ottawa’s Parliament Hill for weeks. Smaller protests and blockades emerged at various border points nationwide.

Judge Mosley’s decision criticized the government’s proclamation, stating it lacked “reasonableness” and failed to adhere to the required legal and factual constraints. The case, brought forth by the Canadian Civil Liberties Association and the Canadian Constitution Foundation, argued that the protests didn’t meet the “high legal threshold” for activating the Emergencies Act, a law untouched since its inception in 1988.

Deputy Prime Minister Chrystia Freeland defended the government’s actions, characterizing them as an “option of the last resort” during a perceived threat to national and economic security. She emphasized the difficulty of the decisions made during a challenging period.

Despite the judge’s ruling, last year’s federal inquiry supported the government’s use of the Emergencies Act, asserting it met the “high threshold” required. Justice Paul Rouleau, who led the inquiry, described the decision as a “drastic move” but not a “dictatorial one.” The report detailed a progression from lawful protest to lawlessness, culminating in a national emergency according to Mr. Rouleau.

The court’s decision marks a significant legal and political development, raising questions about the balance between maintaining public order and protecting civil liberties during times of crisis. As the federal government prepares to appeal, the repercussions of this ruling are sure to resonate, shaping the discourse surrounding emergency powers and their application in democratic societies.