In an unequivocal decision, the Honourable Justice Richard Mosley declared the Liberal cabinet’s invocation of the Emergencies Act as not just questionable but illegal.
The government’s move to enact the Emergencies Act, an unprecedented action taken Feb. 14, 2022, in response to the Freedom Convoy protests, has been found to be in flagrant violation of sections 3 and 17 of the Emergencies Act itself and also Part 1 of the Constitution Act of 1982 and sections of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Justice Mosley didn’t mince words in his 126-page Reasons for Judgment, stating the government’s decision lacked reasonableness, justification, transparency and intelligibility. He made it clear that the Emergencies Act was meant to safeguard fundamental rights, even in emergency situations.
Contrast this with the findings of the Public Order Emergency Commission. On Feb. 17, 2023, Justice Paul Rouleau “concluded that the very high threshold required for the invocation of the (Emergencies) Act was met.” He contended that “cabinet had reasonable grounds to believe there existed a national emergency arising from threats to the security of Canada.”
In his finding, Mosley pointed out that the Governor in Council was required by the Emergencies Act legislation to show that “the reasons for its decision” are “reasonable” and “demonstrate justification, transparency and intelligibility.”
Extensive evidence was brought to the court’s attention, including testimony of RCMP Superintendent Denis Beaudoin. He conceded that RCMP officers gathered names of citizens whose bank accounts were to be seized and frozen and “did not apply a standard, such as reasonable grounds, before sharing information with the financial institutions.”
Justice Mosley’s ruling exposed flaws in the government’s actions, particularly its failure to follow due process when seizing and freezing citizens’ bank accounts. The revelation that RCMP officers didn’t apply any reasonable standard before sharing information with financial institutions is nothing short of alarming.
The government’s attempt to dismiss the matter as moot because the Emergencies Act was revoked on Feb. 23, 2022, was rightfully rejected by Justice Mosley. He ruled that “the Applicants have established that an adversarial context continues to exist and have built a record upon which meaningful judicial review of the decision to invoke the Act and issue the Proclamation … can occur.”
The applicants who sought judicial review of the Emergencies Act invocation, including former registered nurse Kristen Nagle, the Canadian Frontline Nurses, volunteer firefighter Jeremiah Jost, Canadian military veteran Edward Cornell, retired police officer Vincent Gircy, and former Canadian Armed Forces chaplain Harold Ristau, have been vindicated. Gircys and Cornell had their bank accounts frozen without any judicial authorization or review process, a move previously reserved under Canadian law for terrorists or enemy nations.
The Canadian Civil Liberties Association and the Canadian Constitution Foundation have been instrumental in challenging the legality and constitutionality of the government’s actions on behalf of Jost, Cornell, Gircys and Ristau.
Justice Mosley’s ruling underscores the importance of judicial review and raises questions about the justification provided by the Rouleau inquiry. It’s a relief that a review has proceeded despite the government’s control of information and reluctance to disclose it.
Mosley concluded, “if the court declines to hear these cases, a precedent may be established that so long as the government can revoke the declaration of an emergency before a judicial review application can be heard, the courts will have no role in reviewing the legality of such a decision.”
Ray McGinnis is a senior fellow with the Frontier Centre for Public Policy. This opinion first appeared on the Troy Media website. It has been edited for length.
Extensive evidence was brought to the court’s attention, including testimony of RCMP Superintendent Denis Beaudoin. He conceded that RCMP officers gathered names of citizens whose bank accounts were to be seized and frozen and “did not apply a standard, such as reasonable grounds, before sharing information with the financial institutions.”
Justice Mosley’s ruling exposed flaws in the government’s actions, particularly its failure to follow due process when seizing and freezing citizens’ bank accounts. The revelation that RCMP officers didn’t apply any reasonable standard before sharing information with financial institutions is nothing short of alarming.
"The government’s attempt to dismiss the matter as moot because the Emergencies Act was revoked on Feb. 23, 2022, was rightfully rejected by Justice Mosley. He ruled that “the Applicants have established that an adversarial context continues to exist and have built a record upon which meaningful judicial review of the decision to invoke the Act and issue the Proclamation … can occur.”
The applicants who sought judicial review of the Emergencies Act invocation, including former registered nurse Kristen Nagle, the Canadian Frontline Nurses, volunteer firefighter Jeremiah Jost, Canadian military veteran Edward Cornell, retired police officer Vincent Gircy, and former Canadian Armed Forces chaplain Harold Ristau, have been vindicated. Gircys and Cornell had their bank accounts frozen without any judicial authorization or review process, a move previously reserved under Canadian law for terrorists or enemy nations.
The Canadian Civil Liberties Association and the Canadian Constitution Foundation have been instrumental in challenging the legality and constitutionality of the government’s actions on behalf of Jost, Cornell, Gircys and Ristau.
Justice Mosley’s ruling underscores the importance of judicial review and raises questions about the justification provided by the Rouleau inquiry. It’s a relief that a review has proceeded despite the government’s control of information and reluctance to disclose it.
Mosley concluded, “if the court declines to hear these cases, a precedent may be established that so long as the government can revoke the declaration of an emergency before a judicial review application can be heard, the courts will have no role in reviewing the legality of such a decision.”
Ray McGinnis is a senior fellow with the Frontier Centre for Public Policy. This opinion first appeared on the Troy Media website. It has been edited for length.
