Connect with us
[bsa_pro_ad_space id=12]

COVID-19

Freedom Convoy leaders’ lawyers argue there are five major ‘gaps’ in Crown’s case

Published

7 minute read

From LifeSiteNews

By Anthony Murdoch

These gaps include ‘the Crown treating the events as a single protest,’ a ‘failure to address the presumption of innocence,’ and an ‘oversimplification of evidence,’ among other things, the Democracy Fund noted

On day 32 of the trial against Freedom Convoy leaders Tamara Lich and Chris Barber, the defense counsel for the leaders exposed gaps in the Crown’s main argument that the protests were unlawful even though there was no violence during the demonstrations against COVID mandates that took place in early 2022.  

Per a day 32 trial update from the Democracy Fund (TDF), which is crowdfunding Lich’s legal costs, Crown lawyers in court last Friday tried to argue that certain text message exchanges from Barber to Pat King, a protestor not related to the main Freedom Convoy, “pointed to a common unlawful purpose” between them.

Counsel for Lich, Eric Granger, identified five gaps in the Crown’s arguments.  

“These gaps included the Crown treating the events as a single protest, a failure to address the presumption of innocence, an oversimplification of evidence, misattributing the common design, and erroneously assuming collaboration between Lich and Barber for an unlawful purpose,” stated TDF. 

Granger also made an argument against the Crown’s assertion “that the absence of violence or peaceful nature of the protest didn’t make it lawful, emphasizing that the onus was on the Crown to prove the protest’s unlawfulness.” 

When it comes to charges against Lich for blocking streets and roadways, TDF noted that Granger “maintained that these actions could be criminal only if done wrongfully or without police authorization.” 

The reality is that Lich and Barber worked with police on many occasions so that the protests were within the law.  

Thus far, counsel for the Freedom Convoy leaders have been detailing to the court how text message exchanges from one of the leaders showed he was trying to ensure protesters were as respectful as possible and that he wanted to work with police. 

The Crown in court has been holding steadfast to the notion in trying to prove that Lich and Barber had somehow influenced the protesters’ actions through their words as part of a co-conspiracy. This claim has been rejected by the defense as weak. 

TDF has said that a Carter application is very “complicated” and requires that the Crown prove “beyond a reasonable doubt” that there was a “conspiracy or plan in place and that Lich was a party to it based on direct evidence,” and as such, the defense is asking the judge to dismiss the application.

Crown hints it might want to change its ‘position’  

On Friday in court the Crown hinted that it might be looking to change its position ahead of its Carter application.  

Defense counsel for Barber, Diane Magas, as noted by TDF, “stood and informed the court of an email received from the Crown the previous night after 10:54 pm.” 

“The email hinted at a potential change in the Crown’s position ahead of the Carter application, pending its progression. Magas emphasized the importance for the defense to be informed about the case to meet concerning the Carter application,” noted TDF. 

An agreement was reached between the Crown lawyers and Judge Heather Perkins-McVey. 

Magas, when she spoke before the court on Friday, also made a point to highlight her “disagreement with the Crown’s stance on the absence of violence as only an aggravating factor.” 

“She clarified that an assembly becomes unlawful only if the peace is disturbed tumultuously,” noted TDF. 

As for Granger, he emphasized that the Crown “failed to demonstrate a common unlawful purpose.”  

On Day 31 of the trial government lawyers attempted to paint the two as heading a kind of “occupation” in Ottawa, an assertion the leaders’ lawyers swiftly rejected. 

During Day 29, Lich’s legal counsel argued that her use of the rallying cry “hold the line” during the 2022 protests did not imply she was calling for people to engage in illegal activity. 

In court last week, however, Perkins-McVey reminded the Crown that not everyone involved in the Freedom Convoy was working together. The Crown agreed this was the case. 

Lich and Barber are facing multiple charges from the 2022 protests, including mischief, counseling mischief, counseling intimidation and obstructing police for taking part in and organizing the anti-mandate Freedom Convoy. As reported by LifeSiteNews at the time, despite the non-violent nature of the protest and the charges, Lich was jailed for weeks before she was granted bail. 

In early 2022, the Freedom Convoy saw thousands of Canadians from coast to coast come to Ottawa to demand an end to COVID mandates in all forms. Despite the peaceful nature of the protest, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s government enacted the Emergencies Act on February 14. 

During the clear-out of protesters after the EA was put in place, one protester, an elderly lady, was trampled by a police horse, and one conservative female reporter was beaten by police and shot with a tear gas canister. 

Lich and Barber’s trial has thus far taken more time than originally planned. LifeSiteNews has been covering the trial extensively. 

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

COVID-19

Canadian judge rejects complaint against maskless workplaces as frivolous

Published on

From LifeSiteNews

By Clare Marie Merkowsky

A federal judge ruled that complaints that maskless workplaces pose a danger to employees’ health are frivolous, ending the final chapter of COVID regulations.

According to information published on January 15 by Blacklock’s Reporter, Federal Court Justice Benoit Duchesne ruled that Elections Canada manager Nicolas Juzda’s complaint of feeling unsafe following the end of mask mandates in federal workplaces was unreasonable.

“The applicant’s concern about an unsafe workplace was based on his assessment that a significant number of people would return to the workplace under the return-to-work model, that any of these people may have contracted Covid-19 and that the non-mandatory recommendations and precautions relating to Covid-19 fell short of what he believes would be a safe work environment,” wrote the court.

Masks were mandated in federal workplaces from April 20, 2020, to February 14, 2023, under the direction of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau. At the same time, millions of Canadians were forced to mask in public settings such as grocery stores or hospitals.

After the mandate had lifted, Juzda, a “fully vaccinated” individual without any particular health issues, complained that he felt unsafe in the Gatineau headquarters.

“I must excuse my right to refuse work that constitutes a danger,” he wrote, referencing the Canada Labor Code that allows federally regulated staff to refuse work “that constitutes a danger to the employee.”

Juzda claimed that masking “reduces the risk of contracting Covid-19 but is of limited effectiveness if not combined with other measures, particularly during prolonged exposure to unmasked infected individuals such as being nearby in an indoor office for an entire day.”

“Covid-19 is a disease that in addition to often being extremely unpleasant during the acute period poses significant risks including death,” he continued.

“Handwashing and workplace cleaning are of minimal use in limiting the spread of Covid-19,” Juzda claimed.

Indeed, LifeSiteNews has reported extensively on overwhelming evidence showing that masks are ineffective in preventing transmission of COVID and that they come with harmful effects.

Back in 2021, 47 studies confirmed the ineffectiveness of masks for COVID, while 32 more confirmed their negative health effects.

According to another 2021 report, more than 170 studies have found that masks have been ineffective at stopping COVID and instead have been harmful, especially to children.

In fact, in 2020, before masks were widely mandated, Canada’s chief public health officer Dr. Theresa Tam admitted that masks were not effective in preventing COVID.

“There is no need to use a mask for well people,” she said in the first few weeks of the pandemic. “It hasn’t been proven really to protect you from getting the virus.”

Continue Reading

COVID-19

Canadian parents wary of COVID, flu shots for children

Published on

From LifeSiteNews

By Clare Marie Merkowsky

Government research has found that Canadian parents do not plan to inject their children with COVID or flu shots, pointing to the ineffectiveness of the shots and potential side effects

Canadian parents are remaining wary of COVID and flu shots for children despite ongoing publicity campaigns.

According to in-house research by the Public Health Agency obtained by Blacklock’s Reporter, many Canadian parents do not plan to inject their children with the experimental COVID shots, pointing to the ineffectiveness of the shots and potential side effects.

“Continued monitoring of parental knowledge and views around Covid-19 and influenza are important to adapt public communication and education accordingly,” the report said.

“Monitoring parental attitudes is essential to predict expected vaccine take-up and guide education and awareness efforts to promote vaccination,” it continued.

In Canada, COVID shots are both approved and encouraged for all children over six months of age, despite the fact that the latest Pfizer and Moderna COVID-19 shots for children under 12 were only granted emergency use authorization in the U.S.

The research asked parents if they planned to give their children updated COVID shots, to which only 17 percent said they “definitely will”; 26 percent said they “probably won’t”; and 28 percent said they “definitely won’t.”

Those who planned to refuse the reoccurring shots revealed they were “concerned there was not enough research on the vaccine,” questioned the effectiveness of the shots, mistrusted the government information surrounding COVID shots, or their doctor had never mentioned it.

Similarly, 19.5 percent reported being “somewhat hesitant” to give their child the COVID shot, while 21 percent said they were “very hesitant.”

Likewise, parents were hesitant to give their children annual flu shots, over concerns of it being unnecessary and potential side effects.

Parents’ hesitancy to jab their young children comes after research has proven that the COVID shots are not only unnecessary but pose serious health risks, especially to children.

Since the start of the COVID crisis, official data shows that the virus has been listed as the cause of death for less than 20 kids in Canada under age 15. This is out of six million children in the age group.

The COVID jabs approved in Canada have also been associated with severe side effects, such as blood clots, rashes, miscarriages, and even heart attacks in young, healthy men.

The mRNA shots have also been linked to a multitude of negative and often severe side effects in children.

A report from the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) showed at least 21,000 side effects, with 24 deaths of American children ages 12 to 17 after COVID shots.

Continue Reading

Trending

X