John Craig Wright

The Crown appealed the acquittal of Christine Decaire on a mischief charge related to the Freedom Convoy.

The Crown argued the trial judge erred in applying principal and party liability and inferential reasoning from circumstantial evidence.

The Superior Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's conclusion that there was insufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the respondent engaged in overt acts of mischief or formed a common intention to block streets, distinguishing her conduct from other protest-related cases.

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.

The accused, David Arron Romlewski, was charged with two counts of mischief and one count of obstructing a peace officer, arising from the "Freedom Convoy" protests in Ottawa.

The Crown proceeded summarily.

The accused, self-represented, presented pseudolegal arguments regarding jurisdiction, which the court summarily rejected.

The court found the accused guilty of obstructing a peace officer, as his act of sitting down in front of advancing tactical officers constituted a willful physical obstruction of their lawful duty to clear the streets.

However, the court found the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused was a party to the broader mischief committed by the Freedom Convoy protesters, as there was no evidence linking his actions to the overall protest organization or that he aided or abetted the mischief of others.

Duane Gore was convicted of operating a motor vehicle while disqualified, a subsequent offence.

The Crown sought 30-36 months imprisonment and a lifetime driving prohibition, while the defence sought 12 months.

The court considered sentencing principles, aggravating factors (prior record, deliberate act), and significant mitigating factors (eight years of sobriety, rehabilitation, remorse, stable employment, family support).

The court distinguished the case from others involving impaired or dangerous driving.

Acknowledging the need for denunciation and deterrence, but also the offender's rehabilitation, the court imposed a sentence of 12 months imprisonment and a mandatory three-year driving prohibition, rejecting a lifetime prohibition to support rehabilitation.

The accused was charged with driving while disqualified.

He brought a Charter application alleging that the police officer's vehicle stop constituted an arbitrary detention under s. 9, arguing the officer lacked reasonable suspicion and used the Highway Traffic Act as a ruse.

The court found the stop was a valid exercise of police powers under s. 216(1) of the Highway Traffic Act to check for licensing and insurance, which promotes road safety.

The court concluded there was no arbitrary detention or Charter breach, and dismissed the application to exclude the identification evidence.