Canada’s Federal Court of Appeal has ruled that the Trudeau government’s 2022 invocation of the Emergencies Act to end the Freedom Convoy protests did not meet the legal threshold required under federal law.
By yourNEWS Media Newsroom
Canada’s Federal Court of Appeal has determined that the federal government acted unlawfully when it invoked the Emergencies Act in February 2022 to dismantle the Freedom Convoy protests in Ottawa, concluding that the declaration of a public order emergency lacked the necessary factual and legal foundation.
In a unanimous ruling, the court found that the convoy protests, while disruptive, did not constitute a threat to national security as defined under Canadian law. The judges stated that “as disturbing and disruptive as the blockades and the convoy protests in Ottawa could be, they fell well short of a threat to national security,” adding that there was no evidence the situation endangered the lives, health, or safety of Ottawa residents.
The decision upholds a 2024 ruling by Federal Court Justice Richard Mosley, who concluded that the government’s use of the Act lacked “justification, transparency, and intelligibility.” Mosley also found that cabinet orders issued under the Act violated the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, particularly through the freezing of bank accounts belonging to individuals who had not been charged with any criminal offense.
The Court of Appeal emphasized concerns about how financial institutions identified accounts to be frozen, noting a “lack of rigor” in the process. In some cases, banks relied on media reports and social media posts to determine which individuals were subject to financial restrictions, according to the ruling.
The Freedom Convoy began as a protest against COVID-19 vaccine mandates and vaccine passport requirements for cross-border truckers, later expanding into a broader demonstration against government pandemic policies. Protesters occupied parts of downtown Ottawa for weeks, causing traffic disruptions and noise complaints, but the court found these conditions did not meet the Act’s requirement that no other law in Canada was sufficient to address the situation.
Howard Sapers, former correctional investigator of Canada and a representative of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, described the ruling as “a massive and historic victory for the rule of law and the rights and freedoms of all Canadians.” He said emergency powers must be reserved for extreme circumstances and warned that their misuse can threaten democratic principles. “While the extraordinary powers granted to the federal government through the Emergencies Act may be necessary in some extreme circumstances, they also can threaten the rule of law and our democracy,” Sapers said.
The federal government said it is reviewing the decision and considering whether to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada. Public Safety spokesperson Simon Lafortune said the government “remains steadfast in its commitment to ensuring the safety and security of Canadians.”
Under the Emergencies Act, the federal cabinet may declare a public order emergency only if the situation cannot be effectively dealt with under any other Canadian law and if it involves threats of such severity that they rise to the level of a national crisis.
During earlier proceedings, David Vigneault, who served as director of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service at the time, testified that while he supported invoking the Act, he did not believe the protests met the statutory definition of a threat to national security.
The appeal court also warned that an overly broad interpretation of the Act could have lasting implications for civil liberties. The judges cautioned that such reasoning “could stifle all kinds of protests and demonstrations that blockade pipelines, nuclear plants, railway lines, and other kinds of infrastructure to advance a cause.”
The ruling directly contradicts findings from the 2023 Public Order Emergency Commission led by Justice Paul Rouleau, which concluded that the federal government met the “very high” threshold required to invoke the Act. Rouleau wrote that “lawful protest descended into lawlessness,” though he acknowledged reaching that conclusion “with some reluctance.”
The Federal Court of Appeal’s decision now stands as the most authoritative judicial assessment to date on the legality of the government’s actions, reinforcing the limits placed on executive power and reaffirming the high bar required before emergency authorities can be used in Canada.
Original article
Comments