Canadian Federal Court Rules Trudeau's Use of Emergencies Act and War Measures Act Unconstitutional in Freedom Convoy Response

Canadian Federal Court Rules Trudeau's Use of Emergencies Act and War Measures Act Unconstitutional in Freedom Convoy Response

FairFoundation

In a groundbreaking legal development, the Federal Court of Canada has issued rulings deeming both the Emergencies Act and the War Measures Act unconstitutional and unreasonable in their application by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s left-wing government in response to the Freedom Convoy protests. These decisive decisions carry profound implications and have sparked a wide spectrum of reactions, from those directly affected by the government’s illegal actions to politicians vying to maintain their authority.

The Emergencies Act, invoked by the government, was at the center of the Federal Court’s scrutiny. Federal Court Justice Richard Mosley delivered a verdict that starkly stated the decision to issue the Proclamation under the Emergencies Act failed to meet the essential standards of reasonableness, including justification, transparency, and intelligibility. Furthermore, it was not found to be justified in the context of the relevant factual and legal constraints that should have been taken into account.

Justice Mosley’s judgment also emphasized a specific interpretation of EA sections 3 and 17, alongside paragraph 2(c) of the CSIS Act, asserting that the legal constraints on the discretion of the Governor in Council (GIC) to declare a public order emergency were not satisfied.

The ruling declared unconstitutional the national security law employed by Prime Minister Trudeau’s government to arrest leaders of the Freedom Convoy and conduct searches and seizures.

In a parallel case, the Federal Court of Canada ruled that the use of the War Measures Act in response to the Freedom Convoy was unreasonable and excessive. This ruling validated the claims made in a lawsuit brought by various civil liberties groups.

The Federal Court declared that the War Measures Act’s regulations infringed on Section 2(b) of the Charter and that the Order infringed Section 8 of the Charter. Importantly, neither infringement was deemed justified under Section 1.

The legal challenge to the War Measures Act was initiated on behalf of four Canadians who had participated in the Freedom Convoy protests: Jeremiah Jost, Edward Cornell, Harold Ristau, and Vincent Gircys. These individuals, alongside others, had contested the government’s use of this law without legal justification.

Edward Cornell, one of the affected individuals, shared his traumatic experience of having his bank account frozen and seized without judicial authorization or a review process, despite having broken no laws. Cornell, a Canadian military veteran, expressed feeling betrayed by the Canadian government.

In response to these rulings, Canada’s far-left Deputy Prime Minister, Chrystia Freeland, announced the government’s intention to appeal. She defended the government’s tyrannical decision to invoke both Acts, citing so-called threats to public safety, national security, and economic security as the justification for these actions.

In response to these rulings, Canada’s far-left Deputy Prime Minister, Finance Minister, and member of the board of directors of the World Economic Forum, Chrystia Freeland, announced the government’s intention to appeal. She defended the government’s tyrannical decision to invoke both Acts, citing so-called threats to public safety, national security, and economic security as the

Civil liberties organizations, including the Canadian Constitution Foundation (CCF), have expressed their satisfaction with the court’s decisions, viewing them as a vindication of their position that the use of these Acts was illegal, unjustified, and unconstitutional. These organizations remain steadfast in their belief that the government’s invocation of these Acts was unjustified and unconstitutional.

The government’s use of the Acts has been criticized as politically motivated and a violation of the rule of law, prompting ongoing legal challenges.

Moreover, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association filed an application for a judicial review against the government’s use of the Emergencies Act, as did several other groups and individuals. In response to the Federal Court’s findings, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association’s lawyer, Ewa Krajewska, stated in a brief statement on social media, “The Federal Court found that the decision to declare the Emergencies Act was ultra vires and unreasonable and that the measures violated the Charter.”

As the legal battle continues, the government faces significant challenges in defending its actions, while civil liberties organizations and protestors are prepared to continue their fight in the pursuit of justice and upholding Charter rights and freedoms. Today, a federal judge in a real court declared that the various measures Trudeau took, such as seizing bank accounts and forced closures of businesses, were, in fact, illegal.