Further to my presentations on Canada’s truckers’ protest, delivered at The Glastonbury Symposium and on Aeon Byte, there has been an important new development. The Federal Court of Canada has just decided that Trudeau’s invocation of the Emergencies Act 1988, was unconstitutional, illegal and unreasonable.
This contrasts with the prior determination of Justice Paul Rouleau, Chairman of The Public Order Emergencies Commission, a public inquiry into the circumstances leading up to invocation of the EA and subsequent freezing of bank accounts and martial law responses.
The important distinction here is that Justice Rouleau was a political appointee charged with rendering an “opinion” at the end of the inquiry. Justice Rouleau’s “opinion” was that the very high standards of the EA were met. In his remarks, Justice Rouleau emphasized that his “opinion” did not have the force of law and that a final determination was a matter for the courts. This recent decision of the Federal Court, on the other hand, does have the force of law and of legal precedence, opening the way for further lawsuits against the government by all those harmed by invocation.
In his remarks more than a year ago, Justice Rouleau also stated that he arrived at his “opinion” reluctantly as it was “not strongly supported by the facts” and that a reasonable person, properly informed, could easily reach a different conclusion. A compliant media dutifully reported the headline “opinion” without reporting his follow-on remarks, so the government appeared to be in the clear; that is, until now.
If granted leave to appeal, the Trudeau Government will go to the Supreme Court, but government lawyers will have a very steep hill to climb.
Having followed this protest closely for over two years, I now believe we have two different legal systems at odds with each other — one based on established principles and the other clearly politicized. The latter is prepared to ignore “facts” or redefine language to support government policy.
It has been accepted for centuries that a “balance and separation of powers” is the basis of a free society. No one organ of governance (legislative, judicial, executive) should be allowed to dominate the others. In our system, even the police exercise an independent authority. So, when judges make decisions which ignore facts to protect the powerful, we are in grave danger.
“Facts,” said, John Adams, “are stubborn things.” It has been two years now since the protest but those stubborn facts, though suppressed, have not gone away.
We stand on the precipice but have stepped back from the edge, at least for now.
(c) Adrian Charles Smith, 2024
Autonomy Now: 