The Emergencies Act was deemed unreasonably used by the Liberal government to disperse the convoy protests that caused significant disruptions in the capital city and at border points almost four years ago, according to a ruling by the Federal Court of Appeal on Friday. The court upheld a 2024 decision that found former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s invocation of the legislation was unlawful and impinged on the protesters’ Charter rights. The three judges on the appeal court emphasized that while the blockades and convoy protests in Ottawa were disruptive, they did not pose a threat to national security.
The Federal Court initially reviewed the government’s declaration of a public order emergency following a challenge by the Canadian Civil Liberties Association (CCLA) and other organizations. In the 2024 ruling, Federal Court Justice Richard Mosley criticized the lack of justification and transparency in the government’s decision. The court’s decision aligned with Mosley’s assessment that there were no reasonable grounds for the government to believe there was a national security threat warranting the use of the Emergencies Act.
Howard Sapers, the executive director of CCLA, hailed the court’s decision as a significant win for upholding the rule of law and protecting Canadians’ rights and freedoms. He highlighted the delicate balance between the necessity of the Emergencies Act in extreme situations and its potential threat to democracy.
The government is currently evaluating the ruling and considering potential next steps, including a possible appeal to the Supreme Court. Minister of Public Safety Simon Lafortune reiterated the government’s commitment to safeguarding Canadians’ safety and security in the face of public safety threats.
The convoy protests initially focused on objections to vaccine mandates but evolved into a broader demonstration against the government. The use of the Emergencies Act in 2022 granted law enforcement additional powers to disband the protests and freeze protesters’ finances, marking the first invocation of the Act since its inception in 1988.
The court of appeal also critiqued the government’s handling of frozen bank accounts, pointing out the lack of precision in identifying individuals affected by the financial measures. The ruling raised questions about the interpretation of “threats to the security of Canada” and the threshold for invoking the Emergencies Act.
A public inquiry led by Commissioner Paul Rouleau in early 2023 took a different stance from the court rulings, asserting that the government met the stringent criteria for invoking the Emergencies Act. Rouleau highlighted deficiencies in policing and federal response that led to the escalation of the situation, ultimately justifying the government’s decision.