From LifeSiteNews

By Clare Marie Merkowsky

Justice David Labrenz sentenced Anthony Olienick and Chris Carbert, who were charged with mischief and weapons offenses during the 2022 Freedom Convoy-inspired border blockade in Alberta.

A Trudeau-appointed judge serving in an Alberta court has sentenced two men linked to the 2022 Freedom Convoy-inspired border blockade protest in Coutts, Alberta, to six years in prison.   

On September 9, Alberta Court of King’s Bench Justice David Labrenz sentenced Anthony Olienick and Chris Carbert, who were convicted of mischief and weapons offenses stemming from the Coutts border blockade, to six years in prison. 

“Stay strong, live free, spread love – not war,” Olienick declared before being sentenced. 

“I’ve gained a stronger understanding into what divine destiny awaits me,” he added. “I will continue to help others spreading truth, happiness and joy. Unifying people together by using love as my solemn weapon.”  

Labrenz, who was appointed to the Alberta bench by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau in 2018, sentenced Olienick to six years but gave Carbert an additional six months, putting his sentence at six and a half years. However, neither man is expected to serve their full sentence, as both were issued four years of credit for time already served. Both are also prohibited from owning firearms for life, and are required to provide a DNA sample.

Both men have been jailed since February 2022 when they were charged with conspiracy to commit murder during the protest in Coutts, which ran parallel to but was not officially affiliated with, the Freedom Convoy taking place in Ottawa.

Earlier in August, they were finally acquitted of the conspiracy to commit murder charge, but were still found guilty of the lesser charges of unlawful possession of a firearm for a dangerous purpose and mischief over $5,000. Olienick was also found guilty of unlawful possession of an explosive device. 

At the time, police said they had discovered firearms, 36,000 rounds of ammunition, and industrial explosives at Olienick’s home. However, the guns were legally obtained and the ammunition was typical of those used by rural Albertans. Similarly, Olienick explained that the explosives were used for mining gravel.  

The men were arrested alongside Christopher Lysak and Jerry Morin, with the latter two pleading guilty to lesser charges to avoid trial. At the time, the “Coutts Four” were painted as dangerous terrorists and their arrest was used as justification for the invocation of the Emergencies Act by the Trudeau government, which allowed it to use draconian measures to end both the Coutts blockade and the much larger Freedom Convoy occurring thousands of kilometers away in Ottawa. 

Under the EA, the Trudeau government froze the bank accounts of Canadians who donated to the protest. Trudeau  revoked the EA on February 23 after the protesters had been cleared out. At the time, seven of Canada’s 10 provinces  opposed Trudeau’s use of the EA. 

Since then, Federal Court Justice Richard Mosley ruled that Trudeau was “not justified” in invoking the Emergencies Act, a decision which the federal government is appealing. 

As LifeSiteNews previously reported, Labrenz’s decision follows a recommendation from the Crown prosecutor for each of the men to serve nine years in prison.  

Many Canadians online are condemning the ruling, arguing that the men are being treated in a way that is comparable to political prisoners in communist countries.  

“Unbelievable. They made an example out of them. Canada is gone as we know it,” one user lamented.   

Others questioned why the two Alberta men were denied bail for two years while dangerous criminals are allowed to roam free under the Trudeau government’s “catch and release” policy. 

“Meanwhile, a guy out on parole for assault (and 60+ other “police interactions”) cut off one man’s head and another’s hand in broad daylight in downtown Vancouver…” one commented.

Indeed, this policy has put many Canadians in danger, as was the case last month when a Brampton man charged with sexually assaulting a 3-year-old was reportedly out on bail for an October 2022 incident in which he was charged with assault with a dangerous weapon and possession of a dangerous weapon. 

From the Frontier Centre for Public Policy

By Ray McGinnis

During the trial, RCMP officers described what they found as “pipe bombs” in the Tony Olienick’s Claresholm, AB, property after his arrest. They alleged that these were to be used for a dangerous purpose. During the Coutts Blockade, the “explosive” device remained on Olienick’s property, a two-hour drive away.

On August 2, a Lethbridge jury found Chris Carbert and Tony Olienick not guilty of the most serious charge of conspiracy to commit murder of police officers. However, both were found guilty of possession of weapons for a dangerous purpose.”

After the verdict, Newsweek reported “documents obtained under an Access to Information and Privacy Act request showed that the RCMP had been profiling protesters by running license plates through databases, then focusing in on those who possessed federal gun licenses.”

Possession of a Weapon for a Dangerous Purpose

Olienick’s lawyer, Marilyn Burns told this reporter of the charge, “I have not found a case where the charge of possession of a weapon for a dangerous purpose has not been twinned with an act of murder, violence.” This section of the Canadian Criminal Code, she explained, “has two categories: “dangerous purpose for the public peace” or for “another criminal act.” The charge brought by the Crown against Carbert and Olienick was for “possession of a weapon for a dangerous purpose” being “dangerous for the public peace.”

Tony Olienick didn’t have any weapons while he was standing outside of Smugglers Saloon at the time he was arrested. He had a rifle and a 22, and had moved them from his truck to the trailer. There were several guns in the trailer Chris Carbert was sleeping in at the time of his arrest. However, when he came out of the trailer to be arrested, he was unarmed. During the trial, it was confirmed it’s not illegal to have firearms in your camper trailer. It’s legal to have firearms for self-defence in your camper trailer to defend yourself against a civilian intruder. No guns were seen in public. Carbert, Olienick (and Lysak) snuck the guns into the trailer when no one saw them to make it safe – so nothing would happen accidentally to someone in view.

What was the Dangerous Purpose?

Chris Carbert’s lawyer, Katherin Beyak, summarized, “The evidence wasn’t there for Chris needing to have a firearm for self-defence at the blockade, that evidence just didn’t come forward. That’s why I’m trying to figure out what the dangerous purpose was. Other than, perhaps, the jury didn’t think there was a valid purpose for having a firearm at the protest. I don’t know, and we can’t ask them (the jury).” Asked about the jury decision, Beyak said the jury decision may have been “more of a statement that this was supposed to be peaceful, and you shouldn’t have had firearms there.”

The message from this verdict to Canadians may mean even if you are unarmed, you shouldn’t have firearms in the vicinity of a municipality where there is a protest.

 Explosive Witness Testimony

The jury also found Tony Olienick guilty of possession of explosives for a dangerous purpose.

Brian Lambert, a sandstone quarry owner and colleague of Olienick, testified at the trial. He described an explosive device, nicknamed “firecrackers” in the business, he observed Olienick use years ago. Lambert testified Tony Olienick use these “firecrackers” to dislodge stone that would get sold and repurposed for construction. Olienick’s father served as a peacekeeper in the Canadian Armed Forces in Cypress. A stone quarry in southern Alberta occasionally got drill bits stuck in the stone. Olienick’s father created an explosive device with plumbing pipe, ordinary gunpowder, and a fuse that can be purchased at a hobby store. It was used to dislodge drill bits from a stone. After he died, the “firecracker” device was gathered up by Tony Olienick along with other items from his father’s estate. The son moved it onto his property. While the late Mr. Olienick had a permit to use the device, his son didn’t renew the permit for the explosive device.

Marilyn Burns, lawyer for Tony Olienick, relates the RCMP went through everything to find that device in a pile of other belongings of her client’s late father. During the trial, RCMP officers described what they found as “pipe bombs” in the Tony Olienick’s Claresholm, AB, property after his arrest. They alleged that these were to be used for a dangerous purpose. During the Coutts Blockade, the “explosive” device remained on Olienick’s property, a two-hour drive away.

A Warning

One takeaway from the jury verdict: if you go to a protest, make sure any explosive device you have at your property has a permit. Otherwise, even if the device in question is a two-hour drive away, you could be found guilty of possession of explosives for a dangerous purpose.

This commentary is second of a three part series. Read part one here, and three here.

Ray McGinnis is a Senior Fellow with the Frontier Centre for Public Policy. His forthcoming book is Unjustified: The Emergencies Act and the Inquiry that Got It Wrong