Demand that the Freedom Convoy’s $5.5 million be returned. Send a message today
OTTAWA, Ontario (LifeSiteNews) — After a five-month hiatus, the trial for two Freedom Convoy leaders resumed in an Ottawa courthouse last week for closing arguments.
Justice Heather Perkins-McVey, who is overseeing the trial, adjourned the court proceedings in March to allow the government to prepare legal arguments to back its claim that leaders Chris Barber and Tamara Lich were “co-conspirators” as well as to give the defense time to prepare its case that the two are innocent.
Lich and Barber face multiple charges from the 2022 protests, including mischief, counseling mischief, counseling intimidation, and obstructing police for taking part in and organizing the anti-mandate Freedom Convoy. In Canada, anyone charged with mischief could face a potential jail sentence of up to 10 years.
The court sat for three days last week from August 13 to August 15. Thus far, the government has asserted “that the absence of violence or peaceful nature of the protest didn’t make it lawful, emphasizing that the onus was on the Crown to prove the protest’s unlawfulness.”
As reported by LifeSiteNews at the time, despite the non-violent nature of the protest and the charges, Lich was jailed for weeks before she was granted bail.
The Democracy Fund (TDF), which is crowdfunding Lich’s legal costs, noted in a legal update for Day 39 of the trial that it expected the Crown would try to prove the leaders were “co-conspirators,” meaning that accusations placed against one leader automatically apply to the other.
However, this did not occur. Instead, the Counsel submitted legal briefs and then went straight to closing arguments.
The government’s “Carter application” asks that the judge consider “Barber’s statements and actions to establish the guilt of Lich, and vice versa.”
A “Carter application” requires that the government prove “beyond a reasonable doubt” that there was a “conspiracy or plan in place and that Lich was a party to it based on direct evidence.” The defense is asking the judge to dismiss the application.
Lawyers for the Crown claimed to the court that Lich and Barber were the primary leaders as well as organizers of the protest, and thus fully represented the Freedom Convoy. However, Perkins-McVey did not fully concur with this statement as she noted that the evidence presented to her shows that both Lich and Barber were, as noted by the TDF, “one moderate group among many groups in the convoy.”
The Crown then claimed that the Freedom Convoy had one sole purpose, which was to end COVID jab mandates, adding that Lich and Barber had a broad reach on social media. However, Perkins-McVey stated that this was not 100 percent clear and that it was possible protesters involved in the Freedom Convoy were there for various reasons.
The Crown then claimed that the leaders’ use of plural pronouns “we” and “our” in their communications seemed to show that there was a common purpose or theme of the protests, that being to end the COVID jab mandates, however, the court again said there could be other reasons as well.
The government has held steadfast to the notion in trying to prove that Lich and Barber somehow influenced the protesters’ actions through their words as part of a co-conspiracy. This claim has been rejected by the defense as weak.
The reality is that Lich and Barber collaborated with police on many occasions so that the protests were within the law. Lawrence Greenspon, Lich’s counsel, and Diane Magas, Barber’s attorney, have said they will argue against the Carter application.
Day 40 of the trial for Lich and Barber, as per the TDF, saw the Crown during its last day of closing arguments try and show a connection “between the defendants in furtherance of an offence” via a list of statements “of each defendant that the Crown maintains should be admissible against the other.”
As per the TDF, “Counsel then highlighted comments by Lich,” one of which was to “make sure that we get the money to the truckers” as well as “we plan to be here for the long haul,” and “we have no intention to stay one day longer than necessary.”
Perkins-McVey then suggested to the Crown that in her view she did not hear any evidence that Lich and Barber had promoted a way of acting that would be connected to the offense of mischief or obstruction. Despite this, the Crown, as per the TDF, “responded that there is evidence of statements that establish participation in general mischief and obstruction of the protesters.”
On Day 41 of court proceedings, Magas made it a point to remind the court that it is the Crown’s responsibility to “prove the elements of the offenses beyond a reasonable doubt — closer to absolute certainty than a balance of probabilities,” as per the TDF.
Magas noted that the court must find “both guilty mind (mens rea) and guilty conduct (actus reus),” and that it is “interesting” the Crown had the opinion that Barber would “go home” after his and other’s bank accounts were frozen.
“So, for the Crown to say, ‘just go home’ … they took the money for truckers to go home,” Magas said.
Additionally, Magas contested the Crown’s reasoning in relation to an obstruction charge after a Crown lawyer claimed the charge should stay as Lich and Barber “metaphorically stood shoulder to shoulder” with all the protesters.
Magas said that “there is no actus reus of metaphorically standing together for a principal.” According to Perkins-McVey, it would only qualify as obstruction if they specifically told the protesters to do so.
Also, as noted by the TDF, Magas made it a point that Barber was “compliant during his arrest.”
“This, she said, showed that he was leading by example: He was demonstrating the importance of not resisting police and remaining compliant,” the TDF noted.
After adjourning, the court will meet again this week. Perkins-McVey has up to six months to make her final decision once all the closing arguments have been considered.
Besides the ongoing trial, Lich and Barber and a host of others recently filed a $2 million lawsuit against the Trudeau government for its use of the Emergencies Act (EA) to quash the Freedom Convoy in 2022.
In early 2022, thousands of Canadians from coast to coast came to Ottawa to demand an end to COVID mandates in all forms. Despite the peaceful nature of the protest, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s government enacted the Emergencies Act on February 14. Trudeau revoked the EA on February 23.
The EA controversially allowed the government to freeze the bank accounts of protesters, conscript tow truck drivers, and arrest people for participating in assemblies the government deemed illegal.
During the clear-out of protesters after the EA was put in place, an elderly lady was trampled by a police horse and one conservative female reporter was beaten by police and shot with a tear gas canister.
Demand that the Freedom Convoy’s $5.5 million be returned. Send a message today