A Canadian court ruled Tuesday that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s use of a controversial federal law in early 2022 to target truckers protesting their industry’s Covid vaccine mandate was “unreasonable” and illegal.
The use of the Emergencies Act “does not bear the hallmarks of reasonableness — justification, transparency and intelligibility,” Federal Court Justice Richard Mosley wrote. “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.” As the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) explained, “ultra vires” is a term courts use “to refer to actions beyond the scope of the law.”
In early 2022, Trudeau’s government implemented a series of Covid shot mandates for various sectors of Canadian society, including a requirement for truckers crossing the U.S.-Canada border. The tyrannical mandate ultimately prompted Canadian truckers to launch the “Freedom Convoy,” a massive protest comprised of vehicles that ended outside Parliament Hill in the nation’s capital.
While peaceful, the protests evoked the ire of Trudeau, who used the Emergencies Act to mobilize the Canadian military and state intel agencies to forcibly remove the demonstrators gridlocking Ottawa. In addition to backing GoFundMe’s attempts to deplatform fundraising efforts for the convoy, Trudeau’s administration also expanded “its terrorist financing rules to target crowdfunding sites like the convoy’s new platform GiveSendGo,” The Federalist’s Jordan Boyd wrote, with Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland baselessly claiming the platforms were “being used to support illegal blockades and illegal activity which is damaging the Canadian economy.”
As if his abuse of the Emergencies Act weren’t despicable enough, Trudeau — who went into hiding upon the convoy’s arrival in Ottawa — also grossly smeared the protesters with the typical diatribe of leftist slanders, including accusations of “antisemitism, Islamophobia, anti-Black racism, homophobia, and transphobia.”
Despite his best attempt to play the role of a dictator, Trudeau’s use of the Emergencies Act went beyond the scope of what is permitted by Canadian law. While the Emergencies Act can be employed to manage a national emergency that “cannot be effectively dealt with under any other law of Canada,” Mosley determined that Trudeau’s actions far exceeded that 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,” Mosley 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 Cou[r]ts had been resolved without violence.”
Mosley further ruled that the government’s financial crackdown violated demonstrators’ 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.”
Unsurprisingly, the Canadian government plans to appeal the ruling, with Freeland laughably claiming on Tuesday that the administration’s unlawful actions were “necessary” and “legal” because Canadian “national security was under real threat.”
.jpg){kind=link}