Revisiting Controversial Emergencies Act Decision Sparks Renewed Public Discourse a Decade after Mass Demonstrations
A judge’s verdict declaring the federal Liberals’ use of emergency law to suppress a prolonged protest in Ottawa as unjustified has left the administrator of a downtown church feeling that the court overlooked infringements on her rights.
In a decision disclosed on Tuesday, Federal Court Justice Richard Mosley stated that the government’s activation of the Emergencies Act in February 2022 was unreasonable and resulted in a violation of the constitutional right to free expression.
The Canadian Civil Liberties Association, a party involved in the case, asserted that the ruling sends a clear message that, even in times of crisis with heightened emotions, no government is exempt from the law, and fundamental rights and freedoms must be upheld.
Vivian Leir, the longtime administrator of a Presbyterian church near Parliament Hill, expressed her disappointment with the court’s decision, recounting her experiences during the three-week protest in downtown Ottawa.
The “Freedom Convoy” demonstration, initially framed as a protest against COVID-19 health restrictions, attracted individuals with diverse grievances against Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and the Liberal government.
The disruptive sounds of truck horns, diesel fumes, and impromptu encampments led to the temporary closure of numerous businesses and heightened frustrations among downtown residents, some of whom faced harassment.
Protesters, disgruntled with the situation, also obstructed key border crossings to the United States.
Under the Emergencies Act, temporary measures were implemented, including the regulation and prohibition of public assemblies, the designation of secure places, directives to banks for asset freezing, and a ban on supporting participants.
Leir stated that the court’s decision has not altered her conviction that the government was justified in invoking emergency powers.
“At the time, when the federal government brought in the Emergencies Act, it was a great relief to myself and I think many of the citizens of Ottawa,” she said in an interview Wednesday.
“To hear that they didn’t think it was justified when clearly nothing was being done about the situation, it kind of hurts.”
Leir provided testimony in the ongoing criminal trial of two organizers associated with the “Freedom Convoy,” describing her sense of being overwhelmed by the multitude of large trucks and constant horn honking during the protest.
Simultaneously, a proposed $290-million class-action lawsuit against convoy organizers, representing downtown Ottawa residents, workers, and business owners, is progressing in an Ontario court, according to Paul Champ, the lawyer representing the lead plaintiff in the case.
Commenting on Justice Mosley’s ruling, Champ expressed on Wednesday that the invocation of the Emergencies Act should be reserved for exceptional circumstances involving severe threats to the security of Canada, stating, “I don’t think that we were necessarily there.”
“The court definitely found that there was an unacceptable breakdown in public order in Ottawa, but felt that the Emergencies Act, or at least the way it was invoked, was a blunt tool to try to address it,” Champ said.
“The big takeaway is that it’s an extremely high threshold.”
The federal government has expressed disagreement with Mosley’s ruling and intends to pursue an appeal, suggesting that the case may remain within the judicial system for several more months, if not years.
Following the activation of the emergency law, the Public Order Emergency Commission conducted a mandatory review and released 56 recommendations in February to enhance responses to large-scale public order events.
Public Safety Minister Dominic LeBlanc is anticipated to present the government’s comprehensive response to Rouleau’s findings next month.
Under the Emergencies Act, a joint committee of parliamentarians is mandated to review the government’s measures and report to both the House of Commons and the Senate. Formed in March 2022, the committee has convened more than two dozen times but has not yet submitted a substantive report.
The committee is awaiting the translation of documents and evidence into both official languages before considering the material. Parliamentarians are expected to convene when the House resumes to question a representative from the Privy Council Office on the matter.
