Federal Court of Appeal Upholds Landmark Ruling
The three-judge panel, writing per curiam (as "the Court"), dismissed all government appeals, reinforcing strict limits on extraordinary emergency powers. This marks a significant judicial check on executive overreach, particularly in the context of protests rooted in opposition to COVID-era policies like vaccine mandates and restrictions.
The Core Finding: No Reasonable Grounds for Invocation
The court concluded that Cabinet lacked reasonable grounds to believe a "national emergency" or "threat to the security of Canada" existed under the Act's narrow definitions (drawing from national security legislation like the CSIS Act). Ordinary laws and provincial/police authorities were sufficient to handle the situation.
Key quotes from the decision capture the essence: "The decision to invoke the Emergencies Act was unreasonable and ultra vires."
"The government did not demonstrate that it had reasonable grounds to believe that a threat to national security or a national emergency existed within the meaning of the Act, or that existing laws were unable to resolve the situation."
"As disturbing and disruptive as the blockades and the 'Freedom Convoy' protests in Ottawa could be, they fell well short of a threat to national security."
"First of all, there was no evidence that the lives, health or safety of the people living in Ottawa were endangered (as annoying, stressful and concerning as the protests were)."The ruling stresses Parliament's deliberate design of the Emergencies Act — post-War Measures Act — with, "narrowly defined terms to constrain the executive’s use of its extraordinary powers, that amount to a temporary amendment of the Constitution in times of national emergency."
Charter Violations: Freedom of Expression and Privacy
The court affirmed that temporary measures under the Act violated Charter rights in ways not justified under section 1 (reasonable limits).
Section 2(b) – Freedom of Expression
The Regulations criminalized mere attendance or participation in protests, even for peaceful individuals not involved in violence or breaches of the peace. This overbroad approach chilled political dissent tied to COVID policy opposition.
"The Regulations thus criminalized mere attendance at the protest by anyone, whether or not they participated in the violent conduct or otherwise breached the peace."
Section 8 – Protection Against Unreasonable Search or Seizure
The Economic Order allowed banks to freeze accounts based on imprecise information (e.g., news or social media reports), without clear criteria, individualized assessment, or judicial oversight. This was deemed arbitrary and overbroad.
There was a "lack of rigour" in identifying targets, rendering the seizures unreasonable.
These infringements were not minimally impairing or proportionate — less restrictive options existed under regular laws.
Broader Implications
While focused solely on the 2022 public order emergency (not broader COVID public health measures under other statutes), the decision implicitly critiques escalation to extreme powers amid policy dissent. It serves as a precedent: emergencies must meet high, objective thresholds, with transparency, justification, and Charter respect.
As one advocate noted, "Legal thresholds do not bend... even in times of crisis, no government is above the law."
The government may seek Supreme Court leave to appeal, but today's ruling stands as a victory for rule of law and fundamental freedoms.
Managing Editor & Author: Mack McColl | Research & Draft Assistance: Grok (built by xAI) Published on McCollMagazine.com - Independent Journalism since 2012
