The Federal Court of Appeal has ruled that
the
government’s
use of the
Emergencies
Act
during
the Freedom
Convoy was
unjustified.
As a reminder, some scenes from
Freedom
Convoy.
February 16, 2022:
February 5, 2022:
February 3, 2022:
Unfortunatelly,
Youtube didn't
release back
more of my
videos
recorded
during the
Freedom
Convoy. All
those were my
original
recordings,
but Youtube
claimed they
were a fake
news, or
violating
copyrights
(for example,
when the
Indians played
some Indian
rhythms on
drums
and sang).
Friday,
January 16,
2026
Let me summarize and repeat a number
of times:
The
Canadian
government
broke the law.
The truckers
were innocent.
A Federal Court judge ruled in
January 2024
that the
invocation was
unreasonable
and breached
the Charter.
The government
appealed the
decision, but
the Court of
Appeal
dismissed
these appeals,
upholding the
original
ruling.
Attorney
General of
Canada lost
his case vs.
Canadian Civil
Liberties
Association
(CCLA) et al.
On January 16, 2026, the Federal
Court of
Appeal (FCA)
unanimously
upheld a 2024
Federal Court
ruling,
finding that
the federal
government's
invocation of
the
Emergencies
Act in
February 2022
to address the
Freedom Convoy
protests was
unreasonable,
unjustified,
and ultra
vires (beyond
legal
authority).
The Federal Court of Appeal has
determined
that the
Liberal
government
improperly and
illegally
invoked the
Emergencies
Act (Canada’s
equivalent to
Martial Law)
to disperse
the convoy
demonstrations
in downtown
Ottawa in
February 2022.
This ruling,
issued on
Friday,
rejected the
federal
government’s
challenge to a
2024 lower
court judgment
that declared
former Prime
Minister
Justin
Trudeau’s
invocation of
the act
unjustified
and a
violation of
demonstrators’
rights under
the Canadian
Charter of
Rights and
Freedoms.
The
three-judge
panel
emphasized
that, despite
the
inconvenience
and disruption
caused by the
protests,
these events
did not rise
to the level
of a genuine
threat to
national
security. The
judges stated
that cabinet
lacked
sufficient
reasonable
grounds to
conclude such
a threat
existed,
thereby
failing to
meet the
strict
statutory
requirements
for invoking
the
legislation.
The decision also confirmed that the
invocation
infringed on
Charter
rights,
specifically:
- Freedom of expression (section 2(b))
- Protection against unreasonable
search and
seizure
(section 8),
particularly
regarding the
freezing of
bank accounts
and seizure of
trucks without
judicial
oversight.
Freedom of
Expression –
Section 2(b)The Regulations
criminalized
participation
in or
attendance at
certain
protests and
assemblies if
they might
reasonably be
expected to
lead to a
breach of the
peace. The FCA
agreed with
the lower
court that
this overbroad
approach
captured peaceful protesters who were not
themselves
breaching the
peace or
engaging in
violence.
- The protests, while
"disturbing
and
disruptive"
(especially in
Ottawa and at
border
crossings),
involved non-violent
expressive
activity aimed at showing
dissatisfaction
with
government
COVID-19
policies.
- The symbolic nature
of protesting
near
Parliament
Hill or border
points did not
remove them
from section 2(b) protection.
- By criminalizing
mere
attendance or
presence —
regardless of
individual
conduct — the
measures
infringed
freedom of
expression in
a way that was
not minimally
impairing or proportionate.
The court
emphasized
that the
limits could
not be saved
under section
1, as less
restrictive
options (e.g.,
existing
provincial or
municipal
laws) could
have addressed
the issues
without
broadly
suppressing
expression.Unreasonable Search
or Seizure –
Section 8The Emergency Economic
Measures Order authorized
financial
institutions
to freeze bank
accounts and
other assets
of designated
persons linked
to the
protests,
often without
prior judicial
authorization
or an
objective
standard
(e.g.,
reasonable
grounds to
believe a
specific
offence had
occurred).
- This enabled
warrantless
disclosure and
freezing of
financial
information
and assets
based on low
thresholds
(e.g., mere
"reason to
believe"
involvement).
- The FCA found these
powers
constituted an
unreasonable
intrusion into
privacy and
property
rights,
breaching section 8.
- The measures failed
the section 1
justification
test because
they did not
minimally
impair the
right —
safeguards
like judicial
oversight or
clearer
objective
criteria were
absent.
Broader Context and
ImplicationsThe infringements
were tied
directly to
the unlawful
invocation
itself:
without a
valid "public
order
emergency"
(requiring a
genuine threat
to national
security per
the Act and
CSIS
definition),
the
extraordinary
powers —
amounting to a
temporary
constitutional
override —
lacked
foundation.
Civil liberties groups like the
Canadian Civil
Liberties
Association
(CCLA) and the
Canadian
Constitution
Foundation
(CCF), who
challenged the
invocation,
hailed it as a
major
"historic
victory" for
the rule of
law
, reinforcing that emergency powers
must meet
strict
thresholds to
avoid
overreach.
Howard Sapers,
executive
director of
the CCLA,
described the
outcome as a
significant
and landmark
victory for
the rule of
law and the
protection of
rights for all
Canadians. He
noted that
while the
exceptional
authorities
granted under
the
Emergencies
Act might be
warranted in
truly dire
situations,
they also
carry serious
risks to
democracy and
the rule of
law. “This
ruling
establishes
important
precedent,”
he added.
Christine Van Geyn, litigation director at the CCF, said they were thrilled with Friday’s decision, which represents a complete “repudiation” on the Trudeau government’s position on the invocation of the act. “This is an affirmation from the court that these are fundamental freedoms that Canadians have that were violated by the freezing of bank accounts, by the invocation of this act, by the banning of assemblies,” she said. “We’re thrilled with the decision, and we think the court got this right.”
IN 'ONE OF THE MOST SIGNIFICANT CIVIL LIBERTIES CASES IN MODERN HISTORY,' THE GOVERNMENT LOSES APPEAL ON ITS USE OF EMERGENCIES ACT DURING FREEDOM CONVOY
Ottawa, January 16,
2026 –
Today, the
Federal Court
of Appeal
published the
judgment and
reasons for
judgment in
dockets
A-73-24,
A-74-24,
A-75-24,
A-76-24,
A-29-23 &
A-30-23: Attorney General of Canada et al. v.
Canadian Civil
Liberties
Association et
al., 2026
FCA 6.
The Federal Court of
Appeal
confirms that
the federal
government’s
invocation of
the Emergencies Act was
unreasonable
and ultra vires [beyond
their legal
authority],
and that it
infringed
paragraph 2(b)
and section 8
of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
These
appeals
related to the
first ever use
of the Emergencies Act, which authorizes
the federal
government to
take certain
special
temporary
measures when
Canada is
seriously
threatened by
a national
emergency.
On
February 14th,
2022,
following a
number of
border
blockades and
a protest
convoy that
saw hundreds
of vehicles
converge on
Ottawa, ON,
the Governor
General
accepted the
Prime
Minister’s
recommendation
and issued the Proclamation Declaring a Public Order
Emergency,
as well as
related
Regulations
and an
Economic
Order.
Challenging
this decision
to declare a
public order
emergency,
four
applications
were brought
to the Federal
Court. Justice
Mosley found
that the
reasons
provided by
the government
did not
satisfy the
requirements
of the
Emergencies
Act, and that
certain
temporary
measures
infringed
paragraph 2(b)
and section 8
of the
Charter.
The
Attorney
General of
Canada then
appealed the
matters before
this Court.
The appeals
are dismissed.
The decision to invoke
the Emergencies Act was
unreasonable
and ultra vires.
To
avoid the
excesses and
abuses of the War Measures Act, Parliament
drafted the Emergencies 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. 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.
The Regulations
infringed
paragraph
2(b)’s freedom
of expression.
Freedom
of expression
is one of the
fundamental
institutions
of
representative
democracy, and
can only be
restricted for
the most
substantial
and compelling
reasons. The
symbolic
location of
protests at
border
crossings and
in front of
Parliament,
disruptive
though they
were, did not
fall outside
the protection
of paragraph
2(b). Because
they
criminalize
these
protests,
whether or not
participants
were breaching
the peace, the
Regulations
infringed the
protesters’
freedom of
expression and
were not
justified
under section
1 of the
Charter.
The Order infringed
section 8’s
right against
unreasonable
search and
seizure.
While
the government
had a pressing
and
substantial
objective in
enacting the
Economic
Order, its
implementation
was ad hoc and
fraught with
confusion,
requiring
financial
institutions
to disclose
the existence
of property
they had
“reason to
believe” was
owned, held or
controlled by
a “designated
person”,
without a
warrant or
specific
procedures.
Accordingly,
the searches
authorized by
sections 5 and
6 of the Order
were not
reasonable
within the
meaning of
section 8 of
the Charter
and were not
justified
under section
1 because they
did not
minimally
impair the
right to be
free from
unreasonable
searches and
seizures.
https://
decisions.fca-
caf.gc.ca/fca-
caf/decisions/
en/
item/521758/
index.do (ENG)
https://
decisions.fca-
caf.gc.ca/fca-
caf/decisions/
fr/
item/521758/
index.do (FR)
Read court rulling:
https://www.fca-caf.ca/en/pages/decisions/
plain-
language-
decision-
summaries/2026-
fca-6 |
Big WIN for freedom today! The
Federal Court
of Appeal just
confirmed what
I've said
since Day 1:
Trudeau's
invocation of
the
Emergencies
Act against
peaceful
Freedom Convoy
truckers was
ILLEGAL,
UNCONSTITUTIONAL
and a
tyrannical
abuse of
power.
When millions
of people lose
the right to
work, travel,
and socialize,
governments
must act with
humility and
restraint.
Invoking the
Emergencies
Act when
police
indicated the
situation was
under control
crossed a
dangerous
line.
HISTORIC COURT RULING – The
Federal
Government
Broke the Law
– The Truckers
Proved the
Federal
Government Are
the Real
Criminals!!!
Today’s ruling did not just expose a
mistake. It
exposed a
betrayal.
Canada’s
Federal Court
of Appeal has
now confirmed
that the
federal
government did
not meet the
legal
threshold to
invoke the
Emergencies
Act, which
means the
power used to
freeze bank
accounts,
arrest
citizens, and
lay criminal
charges was
never lawfully
justified in
the first
place. The
Canadian
government
broke the law.
The truckers
were innocent.
I want people
to really
understand
what that
means in real
life, not in
headlines.
Families lost
access to
their money.
Businesses
collapsed.
Reputations
were
destroyed.
Marriages
ended. Mental
health was
shattered.
Careers were
wiped out. And
all of it
happened under
a government
authority that
the court now
says should
never have
been used in
the first
place. The
Canadian
government
broke the law.
The truckers
were innocent.
And the
Canadian legal
system
punished the
wrong people.
After the
Mosley ruling
raised serious
doubts about
the legality
of the
emergency-act
regime, the
Crown and the
Attorney
General of
Canada did not
stop. They did
not pause.
They did not
reflect. They
kept pushing
the Freedom
Convoy trials
and illegal
charges
against
innocent
truckers
forward as if
nothing had
changed. In my
judgment, that
was not
justice. That
was political
persecution
and extreme
lawfare
committed by
the Crown.
That was a
corrupt
political
system
protecting
itself instead
of protecting
its citizens.
The federal government of Canada invoked the Emergencies Act knowing full well that what they were doing was ILLEGAL. They knew it did not meet the legal threshold. They knew existing laws were already sufficient. And they knew that, once executed, there would be no personal consequences.
The truckers
did not go to
Ottawa to
overthrow
Canada or the
Government.
They went to
Ottawa to
expose what
was being done
to Canadians.
And today, the
court finally
confirmed that
the Canadian
government
broke the law.
The truckers
were innocent.
And the people
who stood up
paid the
ultimate price
for everyone’s
freedoms.
The consequences were immediate, visceral, and deeply personal. Canadians were tear-gassed, shot with “less-lethal” rounds, beaten with batons, dragged, trampled, and intimidated. Horses were driven into crowds. Chemical irritants were deployed. Armoured police lines advanced on civilians in city streets. And while this was happening in public, the financial system became a weapon. Bank accounts were frozen without warrants, without judicial oversight, and without due process. Families lost access to rent, mortgages, food, and medical care. Donations made legally were punished retroactively. Lives were disrupted, careers threatened and destroyed, and the trust that Canadians place in their institutions shattered forever.
The scale of enforcement was staggering. Protesters were kettled. surrounded on all sides, prevented from leaving, and then arrested for failing to disperse. Armoured vehicles patrolled streets. Snipers were stationed on rooftops. Tactical units with military-grade weapons confronted Canadians who were exercising their rights peacefully and legally. People were surrounded, corralled, and forced into compliance using techniques designed to entrap rather than disperse. Individuals were assaulted under colour of authority. Citizens were detained. Families were disrupted. Careers threatened. This was not law enforcement. This was intimidation. Prime Minister Trudeau repeatedly described the Freedom Convoy as a “fringe minority,” characterized participants as holding “unacceptable views,” and associated the movement with racism, misogyny, and extremism. Cabinet ministers echoed this framing. Protesters were linked, explicitly and implicitly, to hate, foreign interference, and threats to national security. Officials and commentators spoke of “extremists,” “insurrectionists,” and actors engaged in “economic warfare.”
This was not about law or safety. It was about control. And it was facilitated through every lever the government could access: police, military-style tactics, financial systems, and public communications. Ordinary Canadians were silenced, intimidated, and financially crippled.
I believe the
Canadian
government
must never be
above the law,
and the
truckers
deserved
justice
instead of
political
persecution.
People were
pushed through
the show
trials for
crimes they
never
committed.
In a massive
victory for
civil
liberties, the
court signed
this rare unanimous
ruling to
confirm the
government
lacked a legal
"national
security
threat" to
freeze bank
accounts and
crush the
Freedom
Convoy. This
landmark 2026
decision sets
a permanent
shield for our
rights,
proving once
and for all
that the
Charter cannot
be suspended
for political
convenience.
When governments stretch the law,
public trust
erodes.
This case is a
reminder of
how fragile
our democracy
is.
Democracy depends on limits to power, and the willingness to enforce them.
Freedom and liberty will last only
when we are
willing to
defend our
rights.
The fact that nobody is going to
jail is even
more
infuriating.
What is going to happen now?
Will those who committed treason be
finally held
responsible?
The question now is what the legal
remedy is for
those of us
who were
targeted by
the Canadian
government?
Those of us
who had our
bank accounts
frozen, our
businesses
destroyed, our
lives ruined?
What is the
legal remedy?
What
punishment
should Trudeau
and the
members of his
government be
subjected to?
In
any
functioning
democracy, the
law does not
flow one way.
Citizens are
not punished
while
governments
walk away from
illegal acts. Those responsible were not abstract entities. They were individuals making choices at the highest levels. Justin Trudeau led Cabinet, approved the proclamation, and signed it. Chrystia Freeland directed the financial measures that allowed banks to freeze citizens’ accounts, and Mark Carney, unelected and unaccountable, advised and enabled her, turning the financial system into a tool of enforcement. Marco Mendicino oversaw policing and defended actions Canadians witnessed with their own eyes. Bill Blair coordinated emergency operations. David Lametti, Attorney General, failed in the legal duty to prevent unlawful action. Municipal and provincial leaders amplified or supported federal power. Police leadership executed it on the ground. Every decision had consequences, and Canadians paid the price.
Responsibility now falls to citizens to insist that power in Canada has limits, to hold leaders accountable, and to defend the principle that the law applies equally to everyone, including those at the top. Because once a country accepts illegal power without consequence, it does not get its democracy back.
I hope that Polish community and
some of the
presidents of
Polish
organizations
in Canada who
openly
supported the
government's
actions will
pay attention
to this
verdict of the
Court of
Appeal.
Czesław Piasta, Komunikaty Ottawskie
Sąd Apelacyjny uznał
wprowadzenie
stanu
wyjątkowego w
Kanadzie za
bezprawne
16 stycznia
2026 roku
Federal Court
of
Appeal
sąd
apelacyjny
jednogłośnie
oddalił
apelację rządu
i utrzymał w
mocy wyrok
Federal Court
z stycznia
2024 roku,
zgodnie z
którym użycie
Emergencies
Act w lutym
2022 roku w
odpowiedzi na
Freedom Convoy
było
nierozsądne
(unreasonable),
przekraczało
uprawnienia
rządu
i
naruszało
prawa
gwarantowane
przez Kartę
Praw i
Wolności
(m.in. wolność
słowa – s.
2(b) oraz
ochronę przed
nieuzasadnionym
przeszukaniem
i zajęciem –
s. 8).
Główne wnioski
sądu
apelacyjnego
to to, że rząd
nie miał
rozsądnych
podstaw, by
uznać, że
istniało
zagrożenie
bezpieczeństwa
narodowego
Kanady w
rozumieniu
ustawy.
Sytuacja nie
spełniała
definicji
narodowego
stanu
wyjątkowego
(national
emergency), bo
można było ją
opanować za
pomocą
istniejących
ustaw i sił
policyjnych.
Brakowało
rzetelności
m.in. przy
zamrażaniu
kont bankowych
(opierano się
m.in. na
doniesieniach
medialnych i
social
mediach).
To orzeczenie
jest bardzo
mocne i
jednomyślne
(per curiam),
a sąd odrzucił
wszystkie
argumenty
rządu.
Nie jest
jeszcze znana
decyzja, czy
rząd będzie
się odwoływał
dalej do
Supreme Court
of Canada (to
prawdopodobne,
ale na razie
nie ma
oficjalnego
potwierdzenia).
Czytaj całość:
https://www.goniec.net/2026/01/16/sad-
apelacyjny-
uznal-
wprowadzenie-
stanu-
wyjatkowego-w-
kanadzie-za-
bezprawne/
|
Sobota, 17
stycznia 2026
Stowarzyszenie Polskich
Seniorów
“OGNISKO”
