Supporters of the Freedom Convoy protest in front of Parliament of Canada in January 28, 2022 in Ottawa, Canada. (DAVE CHAN/AFP via Getty Images)
By NTDTV Staff
The Federal Court of Appeal has dismissed the federal government’s appeal of a 2024 ruling that found Ottawa’s use of the Emergencies Act during the 2022 Freedom Convoy protests was unjustified and unreasonable.
In a decision released Jan. 16, the appellate court said the Federal Court had “correctly determined” that the government did not meet the legal threshold required to declare a public order emergency. The court found that parts of the emergency orders violated Charter rights, including freedom of expression and protections against unreasonable search and seizure.
While acknowledging that convoy protests in Ottawa and at several Canada–U.S. border crossings were “disruptive,” the judges wrote that the demonstrations “fell well short of a threat to national security.”
The Freedom Convoy began in early 2022 as a protest against mandatory COVID-19 vaccination requirements for cross-border truckers, before expanding into a broader movement opposing pandemic-related mandates.
The federal government invoked the Emergencies Act on Feb. 14, 2022, granting authorities expanded powers to arrest protesters, freeze bank accounts, and compel towing companies to remove vehicles from downtown Ottawa. The measures also made it illegal to attend gatherings designated as unlawful assemblies. The Act was revoked 10 days later, on Feb. 23.
In its ruling, the appeal court said cabinet lacked reasonable grounds to believe that a national security threat existed based on “the evidence that was before it and on a proper interpretation of the Act.”
Ottawa had argued that the Federal Court erred by applying too strict a definition of a “national emergency,” pointing to threats of ideologically motivated violent extremism and economic disruption. The appeal court rejected those arguments, stating that concerns about extremism were insufficient to justify a reasonable belief that national security was at risk.
The court also noted that while the protests affected trade and commerce, the government did not demonstrate that “anyone’s health and safety were seriously at stake.”
“In the absence of any further explanation, we fail to see how they could now be relied upon to establish that the situation was of such a magnitude that it seriously endangered the lives, health or safety of Canadians,” the court said.
The judges also rejected the government’s reliance on an expansive interpretation of “threats to the security of Canada” under the CSIS Act. During hearings before the Public Order Emergency Commission, then-CSIS director David Vigneault testified that while he supported the government’s decision, CSIS did not assess the convoy as a national security threat under its mandate.
The appeal court was particularly critical of the economic measures used to freeze protesters’ bank accounts, calling it an “egregious problem” that personal financial information could be shared with law enforcement without a warrant. The court said the measures could have included safeguards limiting how the information was used.
Without such protections, the court said the Attorney General “failed to establish that the infringement of section 8 of the Charter… was justified under section 1.”
Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms President John Carpay welcomed the ruling, saying the Emergencies Act was “never meant to be used against peaceful citizens exercising fundamental freedoms.” He called the decision a “significant victory for the rule of law.”
The ruling contrasts with findings by the Public Order Emergency Commission, led by Justice Paul Rouleau, which concluded in 2023 that the government met the “very high” threshold to invoke the Act.
However, in January 2024, Federal Court Justice Richard Mosley ruled the invocation lacked “justification, transparency and intelligibility,” saying the Act is meant as a last resort and appeared to have been used for convenience rather than necessity.