Ottawa's use of Emergencies Act against convoy protests was unreasonable, violated Charter, court rules - CBC.ca | Canada News Media
Connect with us

News

Ottawa's use of Emergencies Act against convoy protests was unreasonable, violated Charter, court rules – CBC.ca

Published

 on


A federal judge says the Liberal government’s use of the Emergencies Act in early 2022 to clear convoy protesters was unreasonable and infringed on protesters’ Charter rights.

In what’s already turning into a divisive decision, Federal Court Justice Richard Mosley wrote that while the protests “reflected an unacceptable breakdown of public order,” the invocation of the Emergencies Act “does not bear the hallmarks of reasonableness – justification, transparency and intelligibility.”

“I conclude that there was no national emergency justifying the invocation of the Emergencies Act and the decision to do so was therefore unreasonable and ultra vires,” he wrote in a lengthy decision released Tuesday. “Ultra vires” is a Latin term used by courts to refer to actions beyond the scope of the law.

WATCH | Federal government plans to appeal court ruling 

‘We will be appealing,’ Freeland says after court ruling on Emergencies Act

9 hours ago

Duration 1:35

Deputy Prime Minister Chrystia Freeland says that she remains ‘convinced’ that invoking the Emergencies Act in early 2022 was ‘the necessary thing to do.’ A federal judge ruled Tuesday that the government’s use of the act was unreasonable.

The Federal Court case was argued by two national groups, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association and the Canadian Constitution Foundation, and two people whose bank accounts were frozen. They argued Ottawa did not meet the legal threshold when it invoked the legislation, which had never been used before.

The federal government says it already plans to appeal.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s government invoked the Emergencies Act on Feb. 14, 2022 after thousands of protesters angry with the Liberals’ response to the COVID-19 pandemic, including vaccine requirements, gridlocked downtown Ottawa for nearly a month and blocked border points elsewhere across the country. The protests gained international attention for bringing parts of the capital city to a halt.

The act gave law enforcement extraordinary powers to remove and arrest protesters and gave the government the power to freeze the finances of those connected to the protests. The temporary emergency powers also gave authorities the ability to commandeer tow trucks to remove protesters’ vehicles from the streets of the capital.

Under the Emergencies Act, a national emergency only exists if the situation “cannot be effectively dealt with under any other law of Canada.” Further, a public order emergency can be declared only in response to “an emergency that arises from threats to the security of Canada that are so serious as to be a national emergency.” 

The act defers to the Canadian Security Intelligence Service’s definition of such threats — which includes serious violence against persons or property, espionage, foreign interference or an intent to overthrow the government by violence.

Anti-COVID-19 vaccine mandate demonstrators leave in a truck convoy after blocking the highway at the busy U.S. border crossing in Coutts, Alta. on Tuesday, Feb. 15, 2022. (Jeff McIntosh/The Canadian Press)

The government cited the situation in the Alberta border town of Coutts when it invoked the act. In the early hours of Feb. 14, before the act was invoked, Mounties in Coutts seized a cache of weapons, body armour and ammunition. 

Four men are now awaiting trial, accused of conspiring to murder RCMP officers.

Economic orders infringed on Charter rights: judge 

Mosley said the situation created by the protests across the country did not meet the CSIS threshold.

“The potential for serious violence, or being unable to say that there was no potential for serious violence was, of course, a valid reason for concern,” he wrote. “But in my view, it did not satisfy the test required to invoke the Act, particularly as there was no evidence of a similar ‘hardened cell’ elsewhere in the country, only speculation, and the situation at Coutts had been resolved without violence.”

Mosley’s decision also examined one of the most controversial steps taken by the government in response to the protests — the freezing of participants’ bank accounts.

“I agree with the [the government] that the objective was pressing and substantial and that there was a rational connection between freezing the accounts and the objective, to stop funding the blockades. However, the measures were not minimally impairing,” he wrote.

The judge said the economic orders infringed on protesters’ freedom of expression “as they were overbroad in their application to persons who wished to protest but were not engaged in activities likely to lead to a breach of the peace.”

He also concluded the economic orders violated protesters’ Charter rights “by permitting unreasonable search and seizure of the financial information of designated persons and the freezing of their bank and credit card accounts.” 

The two men whose bank accounts were frozen also argued that their rights under the Canadian Bill of Rights were violated, but Mosley disagreed.

He also concluded that the government’s actions did not infringe on anyone’s right to freedom of peaceful assembly.

Government plans to appeal

Noa Mendelsohn Aviv, executive director of the CCLA, said their win sets a clear and critical precedent for future governments.

“Emergency is not in the eye of the beholder. Emergency powers are necessary in extreme circumstances, but they are also dangerous to democracy,” she said. “They should be used sparingly and carefully. They cannot be used even to address a massive and disruptive demonstration if that could have been dealt with through regular policing and laws.”

Joanna Baron, executive director of the Canadian Constitution Foundation, said the decision is a “huge vindication for many people.”

“[Mosley] also mentioned that economic disruption cannot form the basis for the invocation of extraordinary measures such as those contained in the Emergencies Act, which I think would lead to a very disturbing precedent across Canada, for example in the event of labour strikes and disruptions,” she said. 

The government has long argued the measures it took under the Emergencies Act were targeted, proportional and temporary.

Police move in to clear downtown Ottawa near Parliament hill of protesters after weeks of demonstrations on Saturday, Feb. 19, 2022. The public inquiry investigating the federal government’s unprecedented use of the Emergencies Act in February begins today in downtown Ottawa. (Cole Burston/The Canadian Press)

Deputy Prime Minister Chrystia Freeland told reporters at a cabinet retreat in Montreal on Tuesday that the government plans to appeal the decision, setting up a legal battle that could go all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada.

“We believed we were doing something necessary and something legal at the time,” she told reporters on Tuesday. “That continues to be my belief today.”

“This was an extremely tense time. The safety of individual Canadians was under real threat … Our national security was under real threat – our national security, including our economic security,” she said Tuesday.

Speaking alongside Freeland on Tuesday, Public Safety Minister Dominic LeBlanc said that the situation at Coutts and other border crossings helped to inform the government’s decision to invoke the act.

“It’s not banal when the security services tell you that they found two pipe bombs and 36,000 rounds of munition and ended up laying criminal charges as serious as to commit murder,” he said. “So the context is important.”

Mosley said those findings were “deeply troubling” but suggested the threats were being dealt with by the police of provincial and local jurisdiction outside Ottawa.

The judge wrote that it may be “unrealistic” to expect the federal government to wait when the country is “threatened by serious and dangerous situations,” as the provinces or territories decide whether they have the capacity or authority to deal with the threat.

“However, that is what the Emergencies Act appears to require.” he said.

Rouleau commission reached different conclusion

A mandatory inquiry, led by Commissioner Paul Rouleau, reviewed the government’s use of the Emergencies Act in the fall of 2022 and came to a different conclusion.

After hearing from dozens of witnesses and reviewing thousands of never-before-seen documents, including cabinet ministers’ text messages, Rouleau concluded the federal government met the “very high” threshold needed to invoke the Emergencies Act, citing “a failure in policing and federalism.”

“Lawful protest descended into lawlessness, culminating in a national emergency,” he wrote.

Justice Minister Arif Virani said the government cited Rouleau’s conclusions when discussing the government’s decision to appeal Mosley’s ruling.

“[Rouleau’s] decision stands at odds with the decision that was rendered today and I think that is important and that also informs our decision to appeal,” Virani told reporters Tuesday.

WATCH | Commissioner says federal government met the threshold

Federal government met threshold to invoke Emergencies Act: report

11 months ago

Duration 3:24

The final report out of the Emergencies Act inquiry found the federal government met the threshold to use it, as convoy protesters choked downtown Ottawa and blocked border crossings in early 2022. Still, Commissioner Paul Rouleau calls out police and the Ontario government for missteps in their responses.

CSIS Director David Vigneault testified that he supported invoking the Emergencies Act, even if he didn’t believe the self-styled Freedom Convoy met his agency’s definition of a threat to national security. 

In his final report, Rouleau argued that the definition of “threats to the security of Canada” in the CSIS Act should be removed from the Emergencies Act.

Rouleau, an Ontario Court of Appeal justice, said he reached his conclusion with some reluctance.

“I do not come to this conclusion easily, as I do not consider the factual basis for it to be overwhelming,” he said in statements he gave after his report was made public.

“Reasonable and informed people could reach a different conclusion than the one I have arrived at.”

Mosley heard arguments in court over three days last April. He wrote that at the outset of the proceedings, he felt the protests in Ottawa and elsewhere went “beyond legitimate protest and reflected an unacceptable breakdown of public order.” 

He said he reached his decision “with the benefit of hindsight” and a more extensive record of facts and law than cabinet had available to it when it made its decision.

Political reaction 

Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre was quick to condemn the government and Prime Minister Trudeau personally.

“He caused the crisis by dividing people,” he posted on the social media platform X. “Then he violated Charter rights to illegally suppress citizens. As PM, I will unite our country for freedom.”

NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh said that his party reluctantly supported the invocation of the act.

“The reason we were in that crisis was a direct failure of Justin Trudeau’s leadership and also other levels of government that failed to act,” he said during a caucus meeting in Edmonton.

Singh said his party will watch to see where the appeal goes.

Adblock test (Why?)



Source link

Continue Reading

News

Indian diplomats ‘clearly on notice’ after high commissioner expulsion: Joly

Published

 on

OTTAWA – Canada isn’t ruling out expelling additional diplomats from India, Foreign Affairs Minister Mélanie Joly suggested Friday following bombshell allegations that Indian diplomats in Toronto, Ottawa and Vancouver were involved in state-sponsored violence targeting Canadian citizens.

Canada expelled the Indian high commissioner and five other diplomats on Monday and when asked at a news conference in Montreal Friday if any more expulsions would follow Joly did not say no.

“They’re clearly on notice,” she said.

The minister said that Canada will not tolerate any foreign diplomats that put the lives of Canadians at risk.

A year ago Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said Canada had clear evidence that Indian agents were connected to the murder of Sikh leader Hardeep Singh Nijjar in British Columbia in June 2023. The allegations suggest India is trying to snuff out a movement to create an independent Sikh state in India known as Khalistan.

On Oct. 14, RCMP Commissioner Mike Duheme rocked the diplomatic relationship further, saying the national police force had launched a special investigative unit last February to investigate multiple cases of extortion, coercion and violence, including murder, linked to agents of the Indian government.

In more than a dozen cases, Canadian citizens were warned about threats to their personal safety and Duheme said the national police force was speaking out to try and disrupt what it deemed a serious threat to public safety.

The six diplomats expelled are persons of interest in the cases, with allegations that diplomats used their position to collect information on Canadians in the pro-Khalistan movement and then pass that on to criminal gangs who targeted the individuals directly.

India has denied the allegations and expelled six Canadian diplomats from New Delhi in return.

Joly said Friday the allegations were extraordinary in Canada.

“That level of transnational repression cannot happen on Canadian soil,” she said. “We’ve seen it elsewhere in Europe, Russia has done that in Germany and the U.K., but we needed to stand firm on this issue.”

The allegations will be studied in more detail by the House of Commons national security committee following a vote by the committee Friday. Joly and Duheme will both be asked to appear, as will Public Safety Minister Dominic LeBlanc

NDP MP Alistair MacGregor, who put forward the motion to launch the study, said the fact the RCMP came out with such “explosive revelations” underscores how serious the situation is.

“The RCMP made a point that they were doing this because some individuals in Canada had their lives directly in danger and the threat reached such a level they felt compelled to ignore the traditional way of going through the judicial process and make these accusations public,” he said.

Canada’s allegations were followed Thursday by charges announced by the U.S. Justice Department against an Indian government employee who is accused in an alleged foiled plot to kill a Sikh separatist leader living in New York City.

U.S. authorities say Vikash Yadav directed the New York plot from India. He faces murder-for-hire charges in a planned killing that prosecutors have previously said was meant to precede a string of other politically motivated murders in the United States and Canada.

The Indian government didn’t immediately provide comment on the U.S. charge.

American-Canadian lawyer Gurpatwant Singh Pannun, a lawyer and dual Canadian and U.S. citizen, said in a statement that he was the target of the alleged murder plot in New York. He said he was targeted because he is a lawyer for Sikhs for Justice and was helping to organize votes in a non-binding referendum on the creation of an independent Sikh state.

Nijjar helped organize a similar referendum in B.C. prior to his death.

The House committee Friday also voted to call Brampton Mayor Patrick Brown to testify, as well as other candidates from the 2022 Conservative leadership contest. A report released in June by the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians (NSICOP) contains a redacted paragraph that details alleged Indian interference in a Conservative leadership contest. A specific year is not mentioned.

The Conservatives have said they have been given no information about any such interference.

The committee is also now considering a second NDP motion calling for all party leaders to apply for a top-secret security clearance within 30 days, along with a Conservative amendment to demand Prime Minister Justin Trudeau release the names of parliamentarians listed in top-secret documents as being engaged in or at-risk of foreign interference.

At the foreign interference inquiry this week Trudeau said Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre refused to get the clearance that would allow him to access the names of Conservatives from those documents, while Poilievre accused Trudeau of lying and demanded he make all the names public.

Trudeau acknowledged the documents include the names of members of other parties, including the Liberals, but said if Poilievre doesn’t get the clearance that is needed to know who is at risk he can’t take any steps to prevent or limit the impact.

Manitoba Conservative MP Raquel Dancho told the committee that Poilievre getting a briefing would be a “gag order” against criticizing the government on foreign interference.

“We can put this to bed, it’s rapidly devolving into some McCarthy witch-hunt as a result of the prime minister’s actions and we can clear this up today by releasing the names,” Dancho said.

This report by The Canadian Press was first published Oct. 18, 2024.



Source link

Continue Reading

News

B.C. faces a rain-soaked election day after a campaign drenched in negativity

Published

 on

VANCOUVER – British Columbians go to the polls on Saturday after a too-close-to-call campaign that saw David Eby’s New Democrats and John Rustad’s B.C. Conservatives tangle over housing, health care and the overdose crisis — as well as plastic straws and a billionaire’s billboards.

Forecasters say election day will be soaked in several parts of the province by heavy rain from an atmospheric river system.

But the campaign has already been drenched in negativity, with Eby and Rustad each devoted to telling British Columbians why they shouldn’t vote for the other.

The NDP’s election platform mentions Rustad more than 50 times, compared to only 29 times for Eby, while the B.C. Conservative platform names Eby 50 times, and Rustad only 11 times.

“I hope we never see another election like this,” Eby said this week in Nanaimo, describing the tone of the campaign where he felt compelled to tell voters about controversial public statements made by Rustad and some of his candidates.

“We don’t call people who are gay ‘groomers,'” he said. “We don’t tell Indigenous people that what they experienced in residential schools wasn’t real. We don’t propose that health-care professionals be put in front of an international tribunal similar to the trial of the Nazis called Nuremberg 2.0.”

Rustad, who campaigned in Nanaimo on the same day Eby visited the Vancouver Island city, said the NDP leader has consistently attempted to shift focus away from what he says are the real issues facing the province — mismanagement of the economy, the crumbling health-care system and the ongoing drug overdose crisis that has resulted in more than 15,000 deaths since 2016.

“I don’t know why, I guess as premier he thinks it’s OK to be lying to the people of B.C.,” said Rustad. “The premier of a province like B.C. should be able to be out, being straight up with people and telling them the truth as opposed to lies.”

Regardless of the outcome, the election will go down as a sea change for B.C. politics, with the Conservatives poised to either form government or become the official opposition, after the implosion of the BC United party under Kevin Falcon, who halted his party’s campaign to support Rustad and avoid centre-right vote splitting.

Polls have put the NDP and the B.C. Conservatives locked in a close battle. It’s a remarkable turnaround for the Conservatives, who won less than two per cent of the vote in the last provincial election.

Eby and Rustad spent Friday making last-ditch pitches for support in vote-rich Metro Vancouver.

Eby started in Coquitlam, while B.C. Conservative Leader John Rustad was scheduled to be in North Vancouver.

“We have left nothing on the table,” said Eby, adding every vote will count Saturday. “I have really no regrets about the campaign.”

On Friday, the Conservatives said that if elected they would launch “a full public inquiry” into the use of taxpayer money to buy drugs on the dark web.

That is a reference to a so-called “compassion club” that was operated by the Vancouver-based Drug User Liberation Front to buy drugs including methamphetamine, cocaine and heroin, test it for safety and then sell it to its members.

The club was ultimately shut down and the group’s founders arrested and charged with trafficking.

“This inquiry will seek to uncover who knew what, when they knew it, and what actions were or weren’t taken by the New Democrats, including Premier David Eby,” the party said in a statement.

Rustad was not available to reporters on Friday, but he was holding photo opportunities in Metro Vancouver.

Green Leader Sonia Furstenau was in Victoria, where she is looking to capture a seat in the NDP stronghold of Victoria-Beacon Hill. She has acknowledged the Greens won’t win the overall election, but is hoping to retain a presence in the legislature where the party currently has two members.

The campaign’s only televised debate saw Furstenau tell voters that Eby and Rustad were more closely aligned than people may believe on issues including support for the fossil fuel industry and placing people with mental health and addiction issues into involuntary care.

The month-long campaign has featured regular controversies for the Conservatives surrounding past comments by Rustad and his candidates.

Rustad dropped several potential candidates before the start of the official campaigning period over extreme views posted on social media.

But during the campaign he continued to support Surrey-South candidate Brent Chapman, who called Palestinian children “inbred” and “time bombs” in a 2015 Facebook post.

Eby mentioned Chapman during visits to two mosques in Surrey.

“John Rustad and the B.C. Conservatives are standing with that candidate,” he said at the Guilford Islamic Centre. “They should have got rid of him.”

Eby said the NDP are running two Muslim candidates in the election, including candidate Haroon Ghaffar in Surrey-South against Chapman.

“It’s important to have diverse candidates in the legislature,” said Eby, adding B.C. has yet to elect a Muslim.

Eby faced tough questions from people at the mosque about teaching sex education at schools and the rise of Islamophobia.

Rustad also stood by North Coast-Haida Gwaii candidate Chris Sankey, who suggested vaccines caused AIDS by posting about “Vaccine Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome” during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Then there was Vancouver billionaire Chip Wilson, co-founder of the Lululemon athletic clothing line.

Wilson injected himself into the campaign with a series of anti-NDP billboards outside his waterfront Vancouver home, located in Eby’s Vancouver-Point Grey riding.

Eby and the NDP embraced the moment, saying Eby was on the side of ordinary people in B.C. struggling to make ends meet and not the owner of a home assessed at more than $81 million.

Rustad said he supported entrepreneurs like Wilson, but they couldn’t expect a break on their property taxes.

Rustad’s campaign promise to reverse a ban on plastic straws prompted Eby to begrudgingly agree that “paper straws suck,” but he suggested the B.C. Conservative leader was trying to stir up controversy by diverting attention from major issues facing the province.

Election day coincides with an atmospheric river system that is dumping heavy rain across much of the province.

Furstenau used the weather event to highlight her party’s climate promises, saying the Greens are the only party that offers a serious response to the climate crisis.

“It’s very interesting the timing of an atmospheric river arriving right on the moment of this election campaign, an election campaign where we have one party led by a climate denier and another party led by a climate delayer,” she said.

This report by The Canadian Press was first published Oct. 18, 2024.



Source link

Continue Reading

News

AFN votes on way forward after $47.8 billion child welfare reform deal is defeated

Published

 on

OTTAWA – The executive team from the Assembly of First Nations will meet in the coming days to discuss how to proceed with new negotiations for a child welfare reform deal after chiefs voted against the government’s proposed $47.8 billion agreement at a meeting in Calgary Thursday.

AFN National Chief Cindy Woodhouse Nepinak, who had helped negotiate the deal and pushed for it to be approved, was blunt in her assessment of the outcome in her closing remarks to the special chiefs assembly Friday.

“We also recognize the success of the campaign that defeated this resolution. You spoke with passion, and you convinced the majority to vote against this $47.8-billion national agreement,” she said.

“There is no getting around the fact that this agreement was too much of a threat to the status quo, to the industry that has been built on taking First Nations children from their families.”

Cindy Blackstock, executive director of the First Nations Child and Family Caring Society which helped launch a discrimination case against Canada that led to the deal, said “that’s an unfortunate characterization of the chiefs taking a look at the agreement with their own experts and own legal staff and making an informed decision that’s best for them.”

“I respect the National Chief, and I look forward to kind of working with her and everyone to make sure that we get this across the finish line,” Blackstock said.

The defeated deal was struck between Canada, the Chiefs of Ontario, Nishnawbe Aski Nation and the Assembly of First Nations in July after a nearly two-decades-long legal fight over the federal government’s underfunding of on-reserve child welfare services.

The Canadian Human Rights Tribunal said that was discriminatory because it meant kids living on reserve were given fewer services than those living off reserve.

The tribunal tasked Canada with reaching an agreement with First Nations to reform the system, and also with compensating children who were torn from their families and put in foster care.

The $47.8 billion agreement was to cover 10 years of funding for First Nations to take control over their own child welfare services from the federal government, create a body to deal with complaints and set aside money for prevention, among others.

Before the deal was announced in July, three members of the AFN’s executive team wrote letters to the national chief saying they feared the deal was being negotiated in secret, and asked for a change in course. They also said the AFN was attempting to sideline the First Nations Child and Family Caring Society from negotiations.

Those concerns largely remained when the deal was announced in a closed-door meeting at the AFN’s last gathering, with chiefs questioning how the reforms will work on the ground, and service providers saying their funding levels will be significantly cut which would impact their ability to do their work effectively.

Blackstock found support from 267 out of 414 chiefs who voted against a resolution calling for the deal to be approved.

Squamish Nation chairperson Khelsilem introduced a resolution Friday calling for a new negotiation mandate from chiefs.

“This is a lesson for the Assembly of First Nations, for the staff and legal, for the advisers, for the portfolio holder who has worked on this deal,” he said.

“The way we got here was not the way we should have done this. There’s a better way forward.”

His resolution, and another one from child welfare advocate and proxy chief for Skawahlook First Nation, Judy Wilson, called for the creation of a children’s chiefs’ commission comprised of leadership from all regions in the country to negotiate a new deal and provide oversight, along with a new legal team.

It also calls for chiefs to be given at least 90 days to review an agreement before voting on it, with the document to be made available in both official languages.

Khelsilem said the new negotiation mandate was developed with about 50 leaders from across the country, and hopes it will set a positive path forward in the best interest of kids in care after a fairly testy special chiefs assembly. He also said the new mandate will address “flaws” highlighted by chiefs across the country, and will ensure there is more transparency.

“We didn’t have to be in a situation where we had to vote down a flawed agreement and then create a direction to be able to get this back on track,” he said to chiefs.

“We didn’t have to be here if the process that was used to create the (final settlement agreement) was a meaningful process that meaningfully respected and consulted First Nations, that allowed for meaningful dialogue to improve that agreement.”

In a statement, a spokesperson for the minister of Indigenous Services said Canada worked closely with First Nations on this deal, and as it was being amended.

“The agreement that chiefs in assembly rejected yesterday is the final product of those close negotiations,” Jennifer Kozelj said.

“Canada remains steadfast in its commitment to reform the First Nations child and family services program so that children grow up knowing who they are and where they belong.”

Blackstock said that Indigenous Services Minister Patty Hajdu or Prime Minister Justin Trudeau ought to have been at the gathering in Calgary if they stood by the agreement.

In a statement Friday, the Assembly of First Nations Quebec-Labrador said they’re grateful for the work that has been done to date, but that chiefs need to work together to amend the deal so it respects diversity of communities and eliminates systemic discrimination.

“As chiefs, we have a sacred responsibility to protect our children and families for the next seven generations,” said interim regional chief Lance Haymond.

Blackstock says that even though the deal was defeated, it doesn’t mean they’re starting from the bottom.

“We have so much to build on, including the draft final settlement agreement,” she said. “This is a reset to ensure that First Nations kids all succeed.”

This report by The Canadian Press was first published Oct. 18, 2024.



Source link

Continue Reading

Trending

Exit mobile version