Conservative Party Leader Pierre Poilievre speaks to his supporters after losing the Canadian Federal Election on April 29, 2025 in Ottawa, Canada. (Photo by Minas Panagiotakis/Getty Images)
Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre is speaking out against the Crown prosecutors’ attempt to seize the truck belonging to one of the Freedom Convoy’s organizers, Chris Barber, who is awaiting sentencing.
Barber, who was one of the organizers of the 2022 Freedom Convoy protest against COVID-19 vaccine mandates and other pandemic measures, was found guilty of mischief along with fellow organizer Tamara Lich in April. Barber was also found guilty of counselling others to disobey a court order.
Crown prosecutors are seeking a seven-year prison sentence for Lich and an eight-year sentence for Barber, and are also looking to seize and auction off Barber’s truck, which he used to travel from his home in Saskatchewan to Ottawa for the protest.
Barber’s lawyers filed a “formal legal response” on Sept. 24 opposing the Crown prosecution’s attempt to seize his 2024 Kenworth truck, which he used for his family’s trucking business, according to the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms (JCCF), which has been involved in defending convoy protesters.
The Crown is alleging the truck, which is valued at more than $150,000, was used in connection to committing a crime and should be seized as an “offence-related property.”
Poilievre spoke out about the prosecution’s attempt in a Sept. 27 post on X.
“The Liberal injustice system is going after a man’s livelihood because he protested against government mandates 3 years ago, while child rapists, car thieves, home invaders and violent thugs get released within hours,” he wrote. “Enough. We need change.”
Poilievre has previously commented on the length of sentences the Crown is seeking for Barber and Lich.
“Let’s get this straight: while rampant violent offenders are released hours after their most recent charges & antisemitic rioters vandalize businesses, terrorize daycares & block traffic without consequences, the Crown wants 7 years prison time for the charge of mischief for Lich & Barber,” he said in a July 21 social media post. “How is this justice?”
The Epoch Times attempted to contact the Crown prosecutor in the case and Prime Minister Mark Carney’s office for comment but did not hear back by publication time. The president of the Ontario Crown Attorney’s Association said in July that “attacks” by “politicians, media, and members of the public” in response to the Freedom Convoy organizers’ court case and the recent Hockey players’ court case amount to “affronts to the rule of law.”
“Be they attacks on prosecutorial independence or sexist attacks on principles of fundamental justice, these actions are affronts to the rule of law,” Donna Kellway said in a statement.
“These attacks do not — nor will they ever — drive the decisions made by our prosecutors.”
Court Filing
Barber’s legal team says that, after he arrived in the city on Jan. 29, 2022, Barber had been directed by Ottawa police on where he could park his vehicle. He was also told through text messages with police that “slow rolls” of the vehicle was “a better way to protest,” according to the Sept. 24 court filing.
The filing also said that Barber moved the truck out of downtown Ottawa on Feb. 8 in response to a police request.
Due to these factors, Barber’s legal team says that “Big Red was not used in the commission of the offence of mischief.”
Barber, who calls his truck “Big Red,” says it is essential equipment for his livelihood, and also supports his family and employees.
The defence told an Ottawa court on Sept. 12 that Big Red has been used as collateral to buy a new truck for CB Trucking Ltd, a company that Barber co-owns along with his son. On Sept. 4, Barber’s son was in a crash with another vehicle, and this new truck was a write-off, the defence told the court. It is not known if there will be insurance coverage.
Crown Attorney Tim Radcliffe argued in court on Sept. 12 that “restraint and seizure are optional.” He noted that the Criminal Code allowed for the court to order forfeiture even if the property was not previously seized.
Radcliffe said that even though the truck was collateral on a family loan, which engages third-party protections, this does not block forfeiture. He said that it shifts the analysis to third-party relief provisions.
He told the court that from the Crown’s perspective, returning the property to “innocent third parties” is optional, as the Criminal Code uses the phrase “may” in the context of returning property, and not the word “shall.”
Barber’s filing requests that the Crown’s forfeiture application be dismissed.
Matthew Horwood and The Canadian Press contributed to this article.
Chandra Philip is a news reporter with the Canadian edition of The Epoch Times.