Christopher Paul Fleury

The appellant appealed convictions for mischief and obstructing police arising from his presence in a restricted area on Wellington Street during the Freedom Convoy occupation of Ottawa on February 19, 2022.

He argued the trial judge erred in finding police had common law authority to secure the area, that his arrest violated s. 9 of the Charter, that the search incident to arrest breached s. 8 of the Charter, and that the evidence should have been excluded.

The appeal court found the trial judge correctly applied the ancillary powers doctrine and properly assessed the officer's reasonable grounds for arrest.

The appeal was dismissed on all grounds.

This addendum to the Court of Appeal for Ontario’s decision in Hillier v. Ontario addresses the appropriate constitutional remedy for unjustified limits on peaceful assembly rights under the Charter during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court discusses the principles of “reading in” and “reading down” as remedial tools, ultimately preferring reading down the impugned regulations to exclude peaceful outdoor protests of up to 10 people from the prohibition on gatherings.

The court’s approach is guided by Supreme Court authority and the need to respect legislative intent while vindicating Charter rights.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario allowed Randy Hillier’s appeal, finding that Ontario’s absolute ban on outdoor peaceful assembly during the COVID-19 pandemic was not demonstrably justified under section 1 of the Charter.

The court held that the government failed to consider the impact of the gathering limits on the right to peaceful assembly under section 2(c) and did not tailor the restrictions to accommodate this fundamental freedom, unlike the approach taken for religious gatherings.

The decision clarifies the independent constitutional status of peaceful assembly and the necessity for governments to justify limits on this right, especially in the context of political protest.

This costs endorsement from the Court of Appeal for Ontario addresses the allocation and quantum of costs following the respondents' success in opposing the appeal.

The court fixes costs at $20,000, apportioned 90% to the group represented by Manson and Fleury, and 10% to the group represented by Overwater, to be paid within 30 days.

The appellants, defendants in a proposed class action arising from the 2022 Freedom Convoy protest in Ottawa, appealed the dismissal of their anti-SLAPP motion under s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's decision, finding no reversible error in his conclusions that there were grounds to believe the plaintiffs' claims for private and public nuisance had substantial merit, that the defendants had no valid defence, and that the public interest in permitting the proceeding to continue outweighed the public interest in protecting the defendants' expression.

The appeal was dismissed.

The Crown appealed the acquittals of Evan Blackman on charges of mischief and obstructing a peace officer, stemming from his involvement in the "Freedom Convoy" protests.

The Superior Court of Justice found that the trial judge erred in law by mischaracterizing the offence of obstructing a peace officer, focusing on a non-essential element (requiring a direct police order to leave).

Additionally, the trial judge failed to provide sufficient reasons for the mischief acquittal, specifically omitting any consideration of party liability, which was a central argument for the prosecution.

Consequently, the Superior Court set aside both acquittals and ordered a new trial for Evan Blackman.

Randy Hillier, a former Member of Provincial Parliament, challenged the constitutionality of Ontario's COVID-19 Gathering Restrictions (O. Reg. 82/20 and O. Reg 265/21), arguing they violated his Charter right to peaceful assembly under s. 2(c).

He faced charges for attending political protest rallies during the spring 2021 lockdown.

While Ontario conceded the s. 2(c) infringement, it argued the restrictions were justified under s. 1 of the Charter.

The court, applying the Oakes test and relying on the precedent set by Ontario (Attorney General) v. Trinity Bible Chapel, found that the restrictions served a pressing and substantial objective (reducing COVID-19 transmission and protecting the healthcare system), were rationally connected to that objective, minimally impaired Charter rights given the urgent and uncertain circumstances, and were proportionate.

The court emphasized the application of the precautionary principle in public health emergencies.

The application was dismissed, and no costs were awarded.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to compel the defendant to answer refusals from his examination for discovery, including questions about legal advice he received regarding a Highway Traffic Act charge and questions about his criminal record.

The court found that the defendant partially waived solicitor-client privilege by testifying that he pleaded guilty to the traffic charge solely because his lawyer told him to do so, and ordered specific disclosure of the lawyer's file.

However, the court dismissed the request for the defendant's criminal record, finding it irrelevant to the pleadings and directed solely to credibility.