R. v. Evely, 2025 ONSC 4411
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
Parties
HIS MAJESTY THE KING
v.
JEFFREY EVELY
REASONS FOR DECISION
BEFORE THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE P. ROGER
on Friday, July 18th, 2025, at OTTAWA, Ontario.
APPEARANCES
E. Loignon-Giroux — Counsel for the Provincial Crown
C. Fleury — Counsel for Jeffrey Evely
TABLE OF CONTENTS
REASONS FOR DECISION: Page 1
Legend
[sic] - Indicates preceding word has been reproduced verbatim and is not a transcription error.
(ph) - Indicates preceding word has been spelled phonetically.
REASONS FOR DECISION
FRIDAY, JULY 18th, 2025.
Mr. Evely appeals the decision of Justice Miles of September 17th, 2024, finding him guilty of mischief and obstructing police.
Mr. Evely argues that the trial judge erred in finding that police powers, under common law, included the power to secure an area of the city, or to create the exclusion created by police. This argument is an important part of his appeal, as it informs some of his other arguments.
The appellant also argues that the trial judge erred in her determination of his section 9 Charter rights application brought at trial, more specifically, that there were no reasonable grounds for his arrest. Depending on the legality of his arrest, the appellant argues that the search incidental to his arrest was in breach of his section 8 Charter rights, and that the trial judge erred in her determination of this issue.
Depending on the above, the appellant argues that the trial judge erred in failing to exclude the evidence obtained as a result of the Charter breaches.
As well, Mr. Evely argues that the trial judge erred when she found him guilty of mischief.
The Crown argues that the trial judge did not err.
These events occurred during what was referred to as the "Freedom Convoy". For over three weeks, parts of the downtown core of the City of Ottawa were occupied by the "Freedom Convoy". Eventually, the City of Ottawa, Province of Ontario, and Government of Canada declared states of emergency.
Early the morning of February 19, 2022, Mr. Evely was in the restricted area on Wellington Street, behind the police line. He was asked to stop on several occasions. He did not stop. He had to be tackled to the ground by the police officers. He was arrested and searched, which produced his wallet, and provided his identity. With this information, the police were later able to find videos of Mr. Evely's participation, which were admitted in evidence at trial. These were filed on this appeal.
I find that the trial judge did not err. Consequently, this appeal is dismissed.
On whether the police had authority to lock down parts of Ottawa, the trial judge followed the decision of this Court in R. v. Romlewski, 2023 ONSC 5571. That decision bears some similarities to the facts of this case. It provides, at paragraph 251, this Court's agreement that the trial judge in that case did not err when he found that there was a legitimate police operation and that the police were acting to secure the area to restore order.
Mr. Evely argues that this case is different because the area was secured with the protesters some distance away. However, this is immaterial considering that to secure the area and restore order the police had to maintain the ground that they had gained as the trial judge indicated in her decision. See particularly page 12 of the trial judge's reasons for decision.
Furthermore, it is also apparent at pages 12 and 13 of the trial judge's reasons for decision that she assessed whether this action involved a justifiable exercise of police powers. We see, at these pages, that the trial judge assessed whether the action was reasonably necessary in the circumstances, engaging in the appropriate balancing exercise. She described a carefully orchestrated operation with the area restricted limited to the protest footprint, distinguishing Stewart. She therefore considered the ancillary powers doctrine and considered whether the police action was justifiable within the meaning of that doctrine.
With regards to the lawfulness of the arrest, the trial judge properly found that there were reasonable grounds for the arrest of Mr. Evely. The appellant focused his arguments on the Court's objective assessment of the officer's reasonable grounds as it related to mischief. However, the trial judge correctly addressed the officer's ground to arrest Mr. Evely for mischief. She properly assessed all the circumstances known to the officer. The appellant argues that the police officer, at the time, did not know Mr. Evely, and did not have the information later revealed in the videos, obtained later from his identification, and filed at trial. That is certainly true. However, this ignores that the trial judge is entitled to consider all the relevant circumstances known to the officer, and that the Court is not required to take the narrowest view of the circumstances. The context is important to the analysis, and considering the context, the trial judge's findings were reasonable, and her analysis of this issue correct. However, if I am wrong regarding the above, since the police had authority for their actions, the arrest for obstructing was legal.
Considering my above findings, the trial judge was also correct when she found that the search of Mr. Evely was legal, as it is not contested that if Mr. Evely was legally arrested, he could be searched, as he was searched in this instance.
With regards to the guilty finding on mischief, the brunt of the appellant's arguments on appeal focused on his arguments that the videos were improperly admitted. Considering my above findings, the videos were properly admitted and could be considered by the trial judge. The evidence amply supports her findings that mischief was proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
Consequently, this appeal is dismissed.
Certification
FORM 3
Electronic Certificate of Transcript
Evidence Act, Subsection 5(2)
I, AMANDA SCHRAA, certify that this document is a true and accurate transcription of the recording of R. v. Jeffrey Evely, in the Superior Court of Justice, held at Ottawa, Ontario taken from Recording 0411_CR36_20250718_082512__10_ROGERP.dcr, heard Friday, July 18th, 2025, which has been certified in Form 1 by J. Rugira.
July 23rd, 2025 (Date) (Electronic Signature of Authorized Person)
A certificate in Form 3 is admissible in evidence and is proof, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, that the transcript is a transcript of the certified recording of evidence and proceedings in the proceeding that is identified in the certificate.