Federal appeals court ruled the use of the Emergencies Act against protests unjustified
The court ruled that Trudeau's government acted unreasonably by using emergency measures to break up the trucker protests in Ottawa four years ago.
A Federal Court of Appeal has ruled that the liberal government's use of the Emergencies Act four years ago to clear protests in the capital and at major border crossings was unjustified.
Protests in the Downtown Core
For about three weeks in January-February 2022, Ottawa's downtown areas were filled with demonstrators, many of whom arrived in large trucks and blocked streets around Parliament Hill. The usually quiet downtown became dominated by loud truck horns, diesel fumes, makeshift tent cities, and even a hot tub with an inflatable bouncy castle, as protesters settled in for the long haul.
The massive influx of people, which included far-right movement representatives, forced many businesses to temporarily shut down. Local residents suffered from noise, air pollution, and rude behavior from protesters. Trucks also blocked critical border crossings into the U.S., including routes in Windsor, Ontario, and Coutts, Alberta.
While a large portion of participants were protesting COVID restrictions, the demonstration brought together people with various grievances against then-Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and his cabinet.
Declaration of Emergency
On February 14, 2022, the government invoked the Emergencies Act, which provided temporary measures: regulating and prohibiting public assemblies, designating protected areas, directing banks to freeze accounts, and banning support for protest participants. This was the first time the act had been used since its adoption in 1988, replacing the War Measures Act.
In a letter to provincial leaders on February 15, Trudeau stated that federal authorities believed they had reached a point "where there exists a national emergency arising from threats to the security of Canada."
Legal Proceedings
The Public Order Emergency Commission, which conducted a mandatory review after the act's invocation, concluded in early 2023 that the federal government met the high legal standards for using the law.
However, the Trudeau cabinet's actions became the subject of Federal Court review. The Canadian Civil Liberties Association and several other organizations and individuals argued that Ottawa lacked solid legal grounds for declaring emergency measures. The government insisted that the steps taken were targeted, proportional, and time-limited, and complied with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Canadian visa centers in Russia have stopped ...
The number of people wanting to join the Cana...
China offers Canada joint production of elect...
Trump stripped Canada of its seat on the pres...
Canadians rallied around Prime Minister Carne...
Arctic cold has covered Canada with temperatu...
Trump lashed out at Carney after his speech i...
Canadian companies plan to raise salaries by ...
Gold breaks records and continues to rise des...
Prime Minister Carney concludes a nine-day wo...
Cenovus Energy is preparing to sell assets in...
Carney in Davos declared the breakdown of the...
Judge Richard Mosley, who heard the case, concluded that the federal decision to issue the proclamation lacked the hallmarks of reasonableness—justification, transparency, and intelligibility—and was not supported by appropriate factual and legal constraints. Ultimately, "there was no national emergency justifying the invocation of the Emergencies Act," Mosley stated in his January 2024 ruling. The judge also noted that invoking the act resulted in violations of constitutional rights.
Government Appeal
The federal government appealed this decision. Lawyer Michael Feder, representing the government, told the Federal Court of Appeal in February of last year that it was unfair for the judge to criticize federal decision-making using "hindsight review." This hindsight arose from "the peaceful de-escalation that occurred in light of the emergency measures that are now being challenged."
"Who, outside the courtroom, would seriously suggest that the situation would have improved in the absence of emergency measures?"
Feder argued that the government concluded there were reasonable grounds to believe that the statutory preconditions for invoking emergency measures were met. The government's conclusion "doesn't have to be perfect," he said. "It just has to be reasonable."
