The Supreme Court of Canada will hear federal arguments about the government’s legal justification for using the Emergencies Act to quell protests in the national capital and at key border points four years ago.
For about three weeks in January and February 2022, downtown Ottawa was filled with protesters, including many in large trucks that blocked streets around Parliament Hill.
While many of the protesters were demonstrating against COVID-19 health restrictions, the protest attracted some with a variety of grievances against then-prime minister Justin Trudeau and his government.
Trucks also jammed key border crossings to the United States, including routes at Windsor, Ont., and Coutts, Alta.
On Feb. 14, 2022, the government invoked the Emergencies Act, which allowed for temporary measures, including regulation and prohibition of public assemblies, the designation of secure places, direction to banks to freeze assets and a ban on support for protest participants.
It was the first time the law had been used since it replaced the War Measures Act in 1988.
In a Feb. 15 letter to premiers, Trudeau said the federal government believed it had reached a point “where there is a national emergency arising from threats to Canada’s security.”
The Public Order Emergency Commission, which carried out a mandatory review after the act was used, concluded in early 2023 that the federal government had met the very high legal standard for using the law.
Get breaking National news
The Trudeau government’s move was also scrutinized in Federal Court.
The Canadian Civil Liberties Association and others argued in court that Ottawa lacked sound statutory grounds to deploy the emergency measures.
The government said the steps taken to deal with the turmoil were targeted, proportional and time-limited, and complied with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Richard Mosley, the Federal Court judge who heard the case, concluded the decision to invoke the Emergencies Act did not bear the hallmarks of reasonableness — justification, transparency and intelligibility — and was not supported in relation to the relevant factual and legal constraints.
Ultimately, there “was no national emergency justifying the invocation of the Emergencies Act,” Mosley said in his January 2024 ruling.
In January of this year, a three-judge panel of the Federal Court of Appeal unanimously affirmed that ruling.
The Court of Appeal said that as disturbing and disruptive as the blockades and the “Freedom Convoy” protests in Ottawa could be, “they fell well short of a threat to national security.”
The federal government asked the Supreme Court for leave to appeal the decision.
Following its usual practice, the top court gave no reasons Thursday for agreeing to hear the case.
The court also agreed to hear cross-appeals on issues raised by the civil liberties association and the Canadian Constitution Foundation.
- Public safety takes centre stage in closely watched Kelowna election race
- Province-city relationship key point during Winnipeg mayoral debate
- Miller says government moving quickly but no timeline for new digital regulator
- Canada Post CEO touts ‘early signs’ of recovery even as financial woes persist
-
![]()
Alberta remaining in Canada, but other 9 referendum questions send message to Ottawa: Ipsos -
![]()
Ottawa warns Stelco owner of legal action amid layoffs -
![]()
Defence minister responds to reports CAF was advised not to conduct fire training at CFB Wainwright -
![]()
Canadian government takes some of its websites offline amid worldwide security breach
Howard Sapers, executive director of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, said Thursday that while the extraordinary powers granted to the government through the Emergencies Act are necessary in extreme circumstances, they also threaten the rule of law and the democratic process.
“Courts are responsible for ensuring that the government does not invoke these powers arbitrarily, and CCLA’s mandate is to raise these important issues for judicial scrutiny,” he said in a media release.
In its written submission requesting a Supreme Court hearing, the government said the Federal Court and the Court of Appeal “applied the wrong principles on judicial review.”
The courts should have asked whether — based on the information available at the time — federal officials acted reasonably in concluding a public order emergency existed, the submission said.
“Instead, they asked, with the benefit of hindsight, whether there were reasonable grounds to believe that a public order emergency existed.”
In the end, both courts applied their own view of what was reasonable, the government said.
“This non-deferential approach hamstrings governments’ ability to respond effectively to future crises, neuters the Act” and conflicts with the Supreme Court’s administrative law rulings over the years, the government’s submission said.
“It amounts to second-guessing with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight,” the government added.
“In the end, no one disputes that emergency measures should be a temporary means of last resort. But that does not mean those measures should be available only in the most dire and extreme circumstances.”
In its submission to the Supreme Court, the civil liberties association said the government should be denied leave to appeal because it was attempting to relitigate “the same issues and arguments the Court of Appeal dismissed.”
LOL lots of idiots showing up here today.
@Anonymous 401pm. The odds of you knowing anything about the judicial system are 0%. The odds that you always think you are right are 100%.
The odds of the SC reversing the decisions from TWO lower appellate courts and FOUR separate judges, with 3 of them being unanimous in Appeals, is probably less than 5%. The same arguments will be presented, and the SC will just make an affirmation.
If you think otherwise and have such low opinions of our court judges and their decisions, I’ve got oceanfront property in Colorado to show you.
Anonymous. The SSC is not cowed by lower court decisions and will decide on the basis of the proper interpretaton of the law.
Nice try Liberals.
The Supreme Court won’t be reversing a three-way unanimous Appeal decision. LOL
We only protest against Liberals because we know they’ll let us get away with it. We’re Pants Down for actual authoritarianism. Spank me harder, Orange Jesus!
THERE IS NO REASONING WITH THE LEFT! EMPTY SHELL!
Ben is an AI chatbot with an AI cucumber in its AI azz
Yes I think Justin Trudeau used the Emergency laws way beyond it’s limits. This is a country with Free speech & freedom to express their views without violence. Freezing the protesters Bank Accounts is way more than it limits. It was totally Unfair & unjustifiable.
My little Gen z feelings were hurt.
Looks like the Cons here don’t think Ben has the right to express his opinion. Typical Con interpretation of freedom of expression which means you have the freedom to conform to our position. Instead of lashing out try making relevant points.
Ben is an AI chatbot, don’t be fooled people
Rich is Ben. Who said anything about firearms? Raising straw men is weak. The fact is the truckers illegally occupied Ottawa and were dealt with.
Then there eas the false claim of convoy members transporting assault weapons, and the liberal funded media posted images of cases full of guns. That was all 100% fake and vanished after the restriction were lifted. Not one firearms or weapons charge was laid, as was confirmed by the Ottawa police chief.
Ben will always be Ben, DUMB AS A BAG OF ROCKS
I recall the police told convoy members to pull off a highway and leave their equipment in a gully. These were machines like excavators, etc. The location was not visible to anyone on the roadway. A matter of hours later the equipment operators returned and found all their hydraulic lines cut. The police were the ONLY people who knew where those machines were parked.
Children playing in a bouncy castle will not be tolerated by the LPC.
Anonymous. Instead of telling Ben to shut up because you disagree with him, why not try to explain why you think the trucker convoy was badly treated or why you think the Supreme Court of Canada is corrupt? Personally, I criticize Trudeau for not moving faster to get the convoy out of Ottawa. The truckers exerised their right to protest, like all other Canadians, and continued their protest for two to three years after the trucks were removed. But their trucks didn’t have the right to protest. They didn’t have the right to occupy downtown Ottawa. They didn’t have the right to invade the Shepherds of Good Hope shelter. They didn’t have the right to harass Ottawa residents who decided to wear masks. I could go on and on, but I’ll sum it up to say that they illegally occupied downtown Ottawa, they didn’t leave when they were advised that their occupation was illegal, and they were forced out. The Government was right to do it.
Ben doesn’t understand the definition of the term insurrection nor how to apply it.
Oh, magically ready to rule years after the fact and days after Alberta’s referendum on future referendum.
I wonder what they will decide?
@Ben. Insufferable Ben, do you always take the wrong side? Shut up.
The Liberal Govt didn’t have the requirements to invoke the EA. Trudeau Public Inquiry was a total joke and has already been struck down twice in Federal Court. Another disgraceful gaffe by the Liberals
Ben, your opinion is insufferable mental retardation.
If the corrupt Court sides with corrupt Liberals, our country is dead.
Carney agreed with Trudeau and Freeland freezing protesters bank accounts as he is a total authoritarian and hypocrite
And it sides with the lower court or it falls.
Good grief. My recommendation is everyone get vaccinated and we move on. In my opinion, the convoy was an insurrection so needed to be dealt with harshly. That being said, the Feds could have used other tools instead of the emergencies act-I’m undecided on that. Let’s wait for the court process which I hope will be quick.