Emma Loignon-Giroux

Criminal trial arising from the accused’s role in the downtown Ottawa convoy occupation in early 2022.

The court found the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused was an organizer, leader, and online influencer who counselled and participated in mischief by encouraging blockades, horn honking, resistance to police efforts to clear the area, and later breaches of an injunction prohibiting the use of air horns and train horns.

The court acquitted on intimidation counts, holding the specific intent required by s. 423 of the Criminal Code was not established because the pressure tactics were directed at changing government policy rather than intimidating identified persons within the meaning of the provision.

The accused was convicted of counselling obstruction of police but acquitted of personal obstruction, and the defence of officially induced error was rejected for lack of an air of reality.

The Crown appealed the respondent's acquittal on two counts of mischief arising from the Ottawa Freedom Convoy protests.

The trial judge had excluded the respondent's statements to police as involuntary and obtained in violation of his Charter rights, and found insufficient evidence to prove he was a party to the mischief.

The Superior Court of Justice allowed the appeal, finding the trial judge erred in her voluntariness analysis by requiring verbatim notes, misapplied the law on psychological detention, and failed to consider the evidence as a whole regarding the respondent's participation in the protest blockade.

A new trial was ordered.

The applicant sought a bail review to vary his release conditions, specifically a no-contact order with his wife, following charges of intimate partner violence.

The complainant provided a full recantation under oath, stating she had embellished the original allegations and wished to resume cohabitation.

The court applied the ladder principle and found that, given the recantation and the applicant's compliance with the original order, the no-contact condition was no longer necessary.

The application was granted, allowing contact subject to the complainant's written and revocable consent.

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 applicant, a former provincial legislator charged with offences related to the Freedom Convoy protest, applied for a change of venue from Ottawa, arguing pervasive bias prevented a fair trial.

The Crown argued the court was bound by a prior coordinate decision denying a change of venue for another convoy participant.

The court found it was not bound by the prior decision due to significant differences in evidence, notably a targeted social media campaign against the applicant.

However, the court dismissed the application, concluding that existing procedural safeguards, including robust jury screening, were sufficient to ensure a fair trial.

The appellant appealed his summary convictions for two counts of causing a disturbance and one count of assault arising from two separate incidents at a Tim Horton's and a Walmart where he refused to wear a mask.

He argued the trial judge provided insufficient reasons and failed to analyze the essential elements of the offences.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge's oral reasons were adequate when read in the context of the evidence and submissions, and that the findings of guilt were supported by the evidence.