Protest

Tamara Lich and Christopher Barber were convicted of mischief arising from their leadership roles in the Freedom Convoy, which gridlocked Ottawa from January 29 to February 18, 2022.

Barber was additionally convicted of counselling others to disobey a Court Order.

The Crown sought unprecedented custodial sentences of seven years for Lich and eight years for Barber.

The defence sought absolute discharges or non-custodial dispositions.

The court imposed conditional sentences of 18 months for Barber (concurrent with 3 months for the counselling conviction) and 15.5 months for Lich (after crediting 74 days pre-sentence custody), with strict conditions including house arrest, curfews, and community service.

The court rejected both the Crown's punitive approach and the defence's request for discharges, finding that conditional sentences with onerous conditions could achieve denunciation and deterrence while respecting principles of proportionality and restraint.

The court granted an interlocutory injunction to Titan Tool & Die Limited, restraining Unifor, its Local 195, and named individuals from blockading the applicant’s premises and obstructing the removal of customer-owned tooling.

The decision addresses whether the dispute was a “labour dispute” under the Courts of Justice Act, the procedural and jurisdictional issues raised, and the application of the RJR-MacDonald test for interlocutory injunctions.

The court found the protest was not a labour dispute, that the requirements for an injunction were met even if it were, and that the balance of convenience, irreparable harm, and serious issue to be tried all favoured granting the injunction.

The accused, a spokesperson for the 'Farfadaas' group, was charged with mischief and counselling to commit mischief in relation to the 'Freedom Convoy' protests in downtown Ottawa in early 2022.

The court found that the prolonged occupation, noise, and disruption significantly interfered with the lawful use and enjoyment of property by Ottawa residents and businesses, constituting mischief under s. 430 of the Criminal Code.

The court rejected the defence of officially induced error, finding that police inaction did not amount to permission.

The accused was found guilty of mischief, as his actions and communications actively encouraged and supported the illegal occupation.

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 University of Toronto brought a motion for an interlocutory injunction to dismantle a protest encampment set up by students and others on Front Campus.

The protesters argued the encampment was a protected exercise of their rights to freedom of expression, association, and assembly.

The court granted the injunction, finding that the University established a strong prima facie case of trespass and ejectment.

The court held that the protesters' appropriation of University property to the exclusion of others constituted irreparable harm.

The balance of convenience favoured the University, as the injunction only prohibited camping and erecting structures, while allowing the protesters to continue demonstrating elsewhere on campus.

In an alternative analysis, the court found that the Charter does not apply to the University's management of its property, and even if it did, the trespass notice was a justified limit under section 1.

The plaintiff, Canadian National Railway Company, brought an ex parte motion for an interim quia timet injunction to restrain unknown individuals from blockading its railway operations in Ontario.

The blockades were part of a political protest regarding the conflict in the Middle East.

The court applied the RJR-MacDonald test and found that the plaintiff established a serious issue to be tried regarding trespass, irreparable harm due to significant economic damage and disruption of rail traffic, and that the balance of convenience favoured the plaintiff as the protests were occurring on private property.

The interim injunction was granted.

The Crown appealed the respondent's acquittals on two counts of mischief arising from his participation in the Freedom Convoy protest in Ottawa.

The respondent cross-appealed his conviction for obstructing a peace officer and sought to introduce fresh evidence regarding the invocation of the Emergencies Act.

The Superior Court of Justice allowed the Crown's appeal, finding the trial judge erred in law by failing to consider the respondent's actions—including his refusal to leave the area and his encouragement of others—as aiding and abetting the ongoing mischief.

The court dismissed the respondent's appeal, holding that the police were acting in the lawful execution of their duties and that the fresh evidence would not have affected the result.

Convictions for mischief were entered and the matter was remitted for sentencing.

The plaintiff developer sought a permanent injunction to remove protesters, including the named defendant Skyler Williams, from its property where it was constructing a residential subdivision.

The defendant argued that the common law test for injunctions was unconstitutional and disproportionately impacted Indigenous persons, and that the Crown had a duty to consult.

The court found that the defendant was not an authorized representative asserting collective s. 35 rights, and that the common law test for injunctions adequately balances Charter values.

Finding that the plaintiff held legal title and that damages would be inadequate for the ongoing trespass, the court granted the permanent injunction.

The plaintiffs, CRH Canada Group Inc. and intervenor Nelson Aggregates, sought an interlocutory injunction against the Ontario Aggregate Trucking Association, Ontario Dumptruck Association, and several individuals.

The defendants were blocking access to the plaintiffs' business facilities to compel an increase in haulage rates and impose a fuel surcharge.

The court applied the RJR-MacDonald test, finding a serious issue to be tried in nuisance and unlawful interference with private property rights, irreparable harm due to economic impact and difficulty in collecting damages, and that the balance of convenience strongly favored the plaintiffs.

The defendants did not appear or file materials.

The injunction was granted, prohibiting blockades and interference with access, while affirming the defendants' right to lawful, peaceful protest.

The Automotive Parts Manufacturers' Association (APMA), supported by the City of Windsor and the Attorney General of Ontario, brought a motion for an interim interlocutory injunction to restrain a protest that had obstructed access to the Ambassador Bridge in Windsor, Ontario.

The protest, related to COVID-19 restrictions, caused significant economic harm to the automotive industry and disrupted the local community.

The court applied the three-part RJR-MacDonald test for injunctions and the modified test for statutory injunctions to enforce municipal by-laws.

The court found overwhelming evidence of serious issues to be tried (public nuisance, intentional interference with economic relations) and irreparable harm to the economy and community.

It concluded that the balance of convenience strongly favored granting the injunction, emphasizing that Charter rights to freedom of expression do not extend to unlawful acts that impede public access and cause substantial harm.

The plaintiff developer and the municipality sought a permanent injunction against protesters occupying a residential development site and blocking public roads.

The court found the leader of the protesters in contempt for refusing to obey interlocutory injunctions and struck his pleadings, denying him further participation.

The court granted the permanent injunctions, finding the developer had good title, the protesters' self-help remedies and blockades were unlawful, and there was a serious risk of ongoing harm and violence.

The plaintiff developer sought a permanent injunction against protestors who occupied its lands and halted construction.

The self-proclaimed leader of the protestors, who was added as a defendant, openly defied previous interlocutory injunctions and stated his intention to continue doing so.

The court held that it was an abuse of process for a party to participate in proceedings while in flagrant contempt of court orders.

The court exercised its inherent jurisdiction to prohibit the defendant from further participation until he and his followers vacate the lands and comply with the court's orders.

The plaintiff developer and the municipality brought motions for interlocutory injunctions to remove protesters who had occupied a residential development site and blockaded public roads.

The protesters, asserting an indigenous land claim outside of the court process, did not participate in the proceedings.

The court applied the RJR-MacDonald test and granted the injunctions, finding serious issues to be tried, irreparable harm to the developer and the community, and that the balance of convenience favoured upholding the rule of law.

The Canadian National Railway Company sought a 30-day extension of a without-notice injunction previously granted to prevent protesters from trespassing on or blocking its Brampton Intermodal Hub facility.

The court had initially granted a 10-day injunction due to apprehended harm.

Despite a lack of actual trespass or blockade in the preceding week, new evidence indicated a significant, organized protest was imminent.

The court acknowledged the exceptional circumstances, including the global pandemic and societal upheaval, but emphasized the fundamental rights to expression and protest.

Applying Rule 40.02 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court found that an extension without notice could only be for an additional ten days and required exceptional circumstances.

Balancing the need to protect private rights with preserving freedom of expression, the court limited the injunction extension to ten days and mandated a further hearing on notice to the affected parties, stressing that injunctions should minimally impair rights.

Canadian National Railway Company (CN) sought an injunction to prevent unnamed protesters from trespassing on its lands and blockading its trains at its Brampton intermodal terminal.

Protesters had previously caused significant delays and safety risks while expressing outrage over police brutality.

The court granted the injunction, affirming that while freedom of expression is a Charter right, it does not extend to unlawful acts such as trespassing, endangering others, or disrupting legitimate business operations.

The court applied the three-part test for an interim injunction, finding a strong case for CN, irreparable harm, and the balance of convenience favoring the railway.

The plaintiff, Canadian National Railway Company, sought to continue an interim injunction against protestors blockading its main rail line and to compel OPP officers to identify the protestors for contempt proceedings.

The court validated service of the motion record, continued the injunction, finding a serious issue to be tried, irreparable harm, and balance of convenience favoring the plaintiff.

The court also granted leave to examine an OPP officer to identify the protestors, expressing concern over police inaction in enforcing the initial order.

The accused was charged with public nudity under section 174 of the Criminal Code for standing on the steps of a courthouse wearing only a multi-coloured athletic supporter and sneakers as part of a protest regarding a prior police seizure of his medical marijuana.

The Crown proceeded on the theory that the accused was "so clad as to offend against public order." The court found that while the accused intentionally dressed provocatively and positioned himself visibly on the courthouse steps, the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was "so clad as to offend against public order." The evidence demonstrated no actual disturbance of the public peace or public order—only some bewildered looks and jokes from passersby.

The accused was acquitted.

Canada Post Corporation brought an urgent motion seeking an injunction against protestors blockading its mail processing plants.

After the injunction was granted, protestors continued their actions, leading Canada Post to bring a further urgent motion for directions and amendments to the order regarding police assistance in enforcement, specifically concerning the Peel Regional Police's actions.

The court dismissed Canada Post's motion, reaffirming that courts cannot direct police on how to carry out their operational discretion in enforcing civil orders, and that contempt proceedings are the only available remedy for non-compliance.

The plaintiff railway company sought an ex-parte interim injunction to clear a blockade by unknown protesters on its Toronto to Montreal Main Line.

The blockade halted significant freight and passenger traffic, causing severe economic and operational disruptions.

Applying the R.J.R. MacDonald test, the court found a serious question to be tried regarding trespass, irreparable harm to the plaintiff and the public, and that the balance of convenience overwhelmingly favoured the plaintiff.

The court granted the interim injunction for ten days.

The accused was charged with mischief, assault on police, obstruction of police, and assault with intent to resist arrest arising from his conduct during a protest at Toronto City Hall against budget cuts.

The Crown called seven police officers; the defence called the accused and two witnesses.

The court found the accused guilty of assault on police (pushing PC Hopkinson) and obstruction of police, but acquitted him of mischief and assault with intent to resist arrest.

The court also dismissed Charter applications alleging breaches of sections 7, 8, and 9 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, finding no unlawful detention, no unreasonable search, and no lost evidence constituting a Charter breach.