Verdict in Trial of Tamara Lich and Chris Barber

Does the right to peacefully protest and freedom of speech still exist in Canada?

The Freedom Convoy was sparked by the Liberal government’s insistence that truck drivers entering Canada who were unvaccinated be required to quarantine for 14 days. Others entering Canada who were unvaccinated were required to quarantine for five days. The requirement was an outlier among nations where other countries continued to view truck drivers – who drove their trucks in solitude – as an essential part of the supply chain, and foundational to sustaining the economy. In response to the protest that lasted from January 28 to February 20, 2022, the government invoked the Emergencies Act, froze hundreds of citizens bank accounts without warrants, and had police use physical violence against non-violent protesters to end the protest.

Two of the participants in the Freedom Convoy protests in Ottawa in the winter of 2022, Tamara Lich and Chris Barber, have been found guilty of mischief. On April 3, 2025, a verdict was delivered in the longest mischief trial in Canadian history. I was in the courtroom to hear the verdict read. Mischief trials typically last half a day. The verdict was delivered after 45 non-consecutive days of a trial which stretched from September 5, 2023 until September 23, 2024.

Showing unity with a large group of people, no matter how long someone participates, can also be considered mischief. Both Lich and Barber were charged with six counts: 1) counselling mischief “which was not committed,” 2) intimidation and counselling intimidation, 3) counsel others to obstruct police, 4) obstruct police, 5) “that they…did wrongfully and without lawful authority, for the purpose of compelling one or more persons to abstain from doing anything that the person had the lawful right to do, or do anything that the person had a lawful right to abstain from doing, block or obstruct one or more highways,” and 6) Mischief. [1]

On a seventh count, Barber alone was charged “with disobeying a court order which was not committed,” regarding the February 7, 2022 injunction to stop honking horns (or encouraging others to honk horns in the future). [2]

Early in the reading of the verdict at an Ottawa courthouse, there was signals that the accused were going to be found guilty of something. Justice Perkins-McVey stated “It was…Tamara Lich, Chris Barber along with others who came to Ottawa that formed the Freedom Convoy 2022 Corporation. Tamara Lich was the President of the Corporation and Chris Barber one of the directors.” [3]

The Crown’s Case

“The Crown commenced the trial by saying that this trial was not about the political views or perspectives of Ms. Lich or Mr. Barber and that they were certainly entitled to engage in peaceful protest. The Crown also conceded that the mere presence of the Accused in Ottawa was not unlawful. The Crown conceded in its final submissions that Ms. Lich and Mr. Barber came to Ottawa with the best of intentions to peacefully protest seeking the end to COVID restrictions.” [4]

The Crown conceded in its final submissions the right of citizens to demonstrate “in a free and democratic society such as Canada, we welcome and encourage people to hold demonstrations if such is necessary to exercise their right to freedom of conscience, freedom of expression, freedom of peaceful assembly and their right to freedom of association as guaranteed by section two of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. However, society also expects demonstrators to exercise these rights to do so without violating the rights of others to move about freely or to engage in activities which they have a perfect legal right to do so.” [5]

“The Crown argues that the Accused before the Court by the means they used to express their wish for COVID mandates to end, violated the rights of others to move about freely or engage in activities they had every right to engage in. Defence argues to the contrary that their clients engaged in a peaceful lawful demonstration and always encouraged that anyone associated with them do so.” [6]

The Defence

Council for the accused argued that when deciding between Canadian citizens’ protected rights under both the constitution and Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, to the right to peacefully assemble and protest, and freedom of expression versus the right to enjoyment of public property, the Court must side with these protected rights. In other words, freedom of expression was paramount. After all the government was telling Canadians the science was settled, even as hundreds of citizens were admitted by Public Health in the bowels of its website to have died as a consequence of taking the Covid-19 vaccine. The government was insisting that Canadians be required to take a novel vaccine that had been tested for only a few months, when prior testing of all vaccines typically required five or more years. The government was telling truck drivers to be vaccinated or else, even as it was now clear by January 2022 that the vaccine neither prevented infection or stopped transmission. One hundred and twenty thousand small businesses alone had gone bankrupt in 2020 as a consequence of the lockdowns. Suicides were spiking. In the face of all of this and more, citizens participating in the Freedom Convoy, and supporting it across the country, wanted a public discussion about the claims being made by a government that refused to allow any discussion. In the face of this crisis of confidence in the government’s approach, it was regrettable that some Ottawa residents were inconvenienced, and in distress. However, lawyer Edward Greenspon pointed out the ‘enjoyment of (public) property’ was not a feature of the Canadian Constitution or the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

As well, the Defence cited the Ontario Court rulings by Justice McLean on both February 7 and 16th. In both instances, McLean stated that as long as the protesters abided by the injunction to cease honking of horns, “They remain at liberty to engage in a peaceful, lawful and safe protest.”

Police Testimony

During the trial Constable Craig Barlow presented a compilation video of 38 clips of the protests in Ottawa, and later seven more clips. Barlow testified that his video clips “had been directed by the Crown’s office…. to show congested streets.” [7]

Inspector Russell Lucas testified that “protesters were co-operative with the police and that there were no red flags with them on route.” He told the Court “…it was his decision to allow trucks on Wellington (Street), that he approved it and endorsed it.” Moreover, he explained his thinking was “that Wellington Street is primarily government offices and that they (protest vehicles) would have moved away from residential areas and decreased the impact on residents…” [8]

“Inspector Lucas said he was aware of efforts to negotiate the movement of trucks to shrink the footprint and move vehicles further west onto Wellington Street. He was also aware…that there was an agreement to reduce the footprint. He said his preference was to shrink the protest, but his directive from the Chief of Police was not to give them (the protesters) one inch. In cross-examination, he said he thought that directive came Jan 31st.” [9]

Sgt Cyr was part of the Police Liaison Teams (PTLs) and had contact with Chris Barber, but not Tamara Lich. She understood that there was to be no violence and that truckers had to register and there was a code of conduct. In order to shrink the footprint of the protest, Sgt Cyr testified on a number of occasions “I asked Inspector Lucas if I could move trucks onto a different street and I was denied that.” [10]

Ottawa Police officer Acting Sergeant Jordan Blonde was a member of the Police Liaison Team. He was in contact with Chris Barber who was one of the road captains for the Freedom Convoy. He worked with Chris Barber to ensure an emergency lane was open along Kent Street. He also confirmed that Mr. Barber was actively working on the morning of February 14 to have protest vehicles moved out of residential streets and onto Wellington Street. Officer Blonde had no interaction with Tamara Lich. On the stand, he expressed concern that protesters were erecting a permanent structure in Confederation Park. During cross-examination, he admitted this group of protesters were indigenous and that he met with the Clan mother who was the leader of this group. He also agreed that there were many protesters who were in Ottawa, and that they were not led by any one core group. He agreed that none of demonstrators he met with from different groups “said they were there because of Tamara Lich or Chris Barber.” [11]

Constable Nicole Bach was the primary Police Liaison Team contact with Chris Barber. The two were in constant communication by text from January 29 to February 15, 2022. Bach noted multiple emergency lanes were open on January 31 and February 1, though several blocks of emergency lanes on Kent Street were periodically blocked. She testified that Barber constructively engaged with protesters on the Sir John A. MacDonald Parkway to facilitate communication between police and protesters. She also mentioned numbers of occasions during her testimony that Chris Barber suggested having slow rolling convoys around the city in order to move trucks out of the downtown core and stay in staging areas away from residential neighborhoods. She also testified that Barber was involved in the effort to move protest vehicles out of the downtown on February 14, and that this effort had been blocked by police. Constable Bach confirmed that the PLT wanted to ensure public safety, public order, respect for Charter rights, public expression and public assembly. She testified that the goal of the Ottawa Police Service was “to ensure a lawful, peaceful, safe demonstration with minimal disruption to citizens.” In her January 30 Signal Chat she described the protesters as “not aggressive” with police. Consistent with officer Blonde, Constable Bach concurred that Chris Barber “didn’t control everybody who was (protesting) in Ottawa.” She commended Barber for his efforts to assist in moving trucks at the direction of police. [12]

City of Ottawa Testimony

Kim Ayotte, General Manager for Emergency and Protective Services for the City of Ottawa, “explained that on January 29, 2022, his by-law officers were directed not to give out (parking) tickets or tow vehicles in the Red Zone as police controlled all enforcement activity.” He agreed that from the outset the City of Ottawa anticipated the protest could “go on for a prolonged period.” [13] Mr. Ayotte detailed that on February 5 at 2:00 PM an emergency lane was taken over on Wellington Street, and there was no Emergency Lane. Nonetheless, he also testified that “for the most part several of the emergency lanes were maintained.” [14]

Ayotte confirmed that on February 13, 2022, he had a meeting with representatives of the Freedom Convoy. This included Chris Barber and the discussion was about how “Mr. Ayotte could help them facilitate the movement of vehicles from the residential portion of the downtown area onto Wellington (Street) and out of the city.” It was understood that Mr. Ayotte would be the senior person with the city of Ottawa who could assist in “moving barricades or police vehicles.” [15] Ayotte testified that on February 14 and 15 protesters assisted with moving barricades. However, “some of the roadblocks were also with police officers (who were) not wanting to move vehicles (out of the residential areas) because they had not been given the direction to move vehicles.” Later in his testimony, he “said the movement of trucks that first day (February 14) was seen as a success and from his perspective, the truckers were living up to their end of the bargain.” [16] Mr. Ayotte did not have any interactions with Tamara Lich.

Inspector Lucas concurred that the plan to reduce the footprint and move the trucks onto Wellington was a plan he endorsed. However, the acting Ottawa Police Chief (Steve Bell) decided “not to continue this plan and not to allow trucks to move onto Wellington.” [17]

Serge Arpin, Chief of Staff to former City of Ottawa mayor Jim Watson, testified that on February 12, 2022, he sent a letter to Tamara Lich “asking the Convoy leaders to consider removing the trucks from the residential districts of Ottawa…. He received a reply that laid out their broad consent to the mayor’s proposal.” Arpin indicated he thought Ms. Lich “represented the broad moderate group of the demonstrators.” Later in his testimony, Mr. Arpin confirmed that he testified at the POEC that 102 vehicles…moved, which he viewed as a commitment to honouring the agreement. He understood it was the Ottawa Police that stopped the movement of the trucks. He agreed he apologized to counsel for the Freedom Convoy because he saw it as a failure on our side (the City of Ottawa) to implement the agreement” to move 75% of the protest vehicles out of the city. [18] Serge Arpin also confirmed that on February 9, 2022, the city changed the idling by-law so vehicle owners could only idle if it was -15C or colder.

Ottawa Resident Testimony

Ottawa resident Sarah Gawman confirmed that after the February 7 honking injunction honking of horns was only “sporadic.” She left the city between February 3rd and 6th, and never had any contact with either of the accused. During cross-examination, Gawman conceded that she was not able to identify or verify who she says yelled at her during the protest, or why that might have occurred. She admitted that she was an active participant in the $300,000,000.00 civil action lawsuit against named members of the Freedom Convoy. She also confirmed that at no time did she have any contact with defendants Tamara Lich and Chris Barber. [19]

Vivian Leir was a church administrator at St. Andrew’s Presbyterian Church at Kent Street and Wellington Street. She testified that she was overwhelmed by the noise and the diesel small. “She testified that people were urinating and defecating on Church property and that when she told them not to, she was sworn at. She said people put items of clothing on Church statues, and there was also garbage and signage.” [20] However, Leir had no direct contact with either of the accused. She agreed that after the horn honking injunction of February 7, the horn honking and noise was greatly reduced. She admitted that her statements on the stand were contradictory. She confessed that she was part of the class action lawsuit against some Convoy participants.

During cross-examination, Leir was shown “videos dated February 5, 2022, and February 10, 2022, depicting scenes on Wellington Street during the protest. These videos showed an open lane with no honking, loud music, or shouting, and in one of the videos, music could be heard coming from a truck but at a low volume. Leir agreed that these videos depicted a quieter scene than what she had described earlier.” Leir also admitted she could not identify the persons she alleged urinated on church property or confirm their involvement with the protest. She also confirmed that she walked alone unencumbered, without an escort, in Ottawa during the protest. In addition, she clarified that her only contact with Ottawa Police during the protest was to discuss “the church minister’s transportation arrangements.” [21]

Stephane Bellfoy, a downtown resident, testified that his typical twenty-minute commute to work was now 90 minutes. He testified that after the horn honking injunction the honking was sporadic. He conceded that at no point did he phone the police after the injunction to complain about noise. Chris Barber’s lawyer, Diane Magas, showed Bellfoy a photo taken during the Freedom Convoy of Lion Street and Laurier Avenue, near Bellfoy’s home. In the image, there were very few vehicles on the street. “Magas asked if the image was reflective of his memory of Lion Street in Feb 2022. Bellfoy agreed that it was.” [22]

Chantal Biro ran a clothing boutique in the ByWard Market. Like the other Ottawa residents who testified at the trial, she had no direct contact with Tamara Lich or Chris Barber. “While Ms. Biro did not report difficulties accessing her parking spot in the ByWard Market, she testified that…disruptions associated with the Freedom Convoy resulted in delayed deliveries…she had “uncomfortable” interactions with Freedom Convoy participants who…laughed at her for wearing a mask.” [23]

She also contended that protesters were laughing at her for working in a store. During cross-examination in the trial, Brio conceded that she could not identify anyone who she alleges “made fun of her or swore at her during the protest.” She admitted during the trial that she was a named plaintiff in the Class Action suit against the Freedom Convoy. [24]

Natalie Huneault worked for OC Transpo detailed how “5 major (bus) routes were affected… She agreed that decisions regarding road closures were made by the Ottawa Police and that buses were rerouted due to road closures, which the police were to blame for. Huneault also had no interactions with Tamara Lich or Chris Barber. [25] “During cross-examination, Huneault admitted that the O Train was not impacted by road closures, and she was able to reroute all other road closures.” [26]

Ottawa resident Paul Jorgensen was disturbed by the noise of honking and that the number of trucks arriving in the Freedom Convoy. He left Ottawa from January 31 to February 9, 2022. When he returned “the noise level had significantly improved and…a noise flare-up might last from seconds to minutes.” He testified that on return on February 9th “it was livable.” [27]

During the trial, under cross-examination, Jorgenson was asked about his frustration with multiple vehicles blocking the driveway to his building. “He admitted he did not attempt to speak with any of the people in the vehicles to ask them to move, nor did he contact the police.” Though he stated he felt threatened by “a large group of protesters,” that he conceded were five or six people, he agreed that he was able to walk past them and that he “did not contact the police following the interaction.” Though he testified he was experiencing “food insecurity,” he admitted that he did not go to the Whole Foods grocery store that was opened for business “due to the cold weather.” In addition, Jorgenson testified during the trial that during the convoy he and his partner “assisted a group of counter protesters in intentionally blocking traffic on Elgin Street.” Remarking on taking part in blocking traffic as part of a counterprotest, he described “the positive feelings he experienced” as a consequence of his action. Jorgenson conceded that he is part of the class action lawsuit against the convoy. [28]

Zexi Li is a government employee who is a named plaintiff in a civil class action lawsuit against Ms. Lich and Mr. Barber. She testified that after the injunction there was minimal honking. In fact, she only heard “one or two occasional honks.” However, she contended “when she would leave her home, she observed faeces, urine, and garbage everywhere.” Li agreed that she confronted the protesters on one occasion saying “Go the F back where you came from.” [29]

Under cross-examination, Zexi Li was asked to be specific about her claim that a truck “backed into her.” At this point, she conceded that the truck did not make any contact with her. Though she alleged she saw an ambulance obstructed from being able to go through an intersection, she could not recall what date this occurred. She was asked by lawyer Lawrence Greenspon if she was familiar with a report about ambulance response times during the protests that determined that “ambulances arrived on time.” She told the court she was not aware of this report. When pressed on what roads were blocked on what dates, Li conceded she could not name a specific road or a specific date this might have occurred. Li testified that she is a “named plaintiff in the class action lawsuit against the Freedom Convoy.” Li further agreed that the provincial court injunction permitted convoy protesters to continue “to engage in peaceful, lawful, and safe protests” after February 7, 2022. Moreover, Li verified that she was at the provincial court when the injunction order to stop honking horns and continue protesting was granted. As well, “her lawyers” at the February 7, 2022 injunction “consented” to the continuance of the protest provided that the horn honking ceased. During the cross-examination, Li remembered that after the injunction “the honking has stopped entirely.” This was consistent with her testimony at the POEC. [30]

The Defence had petitioned for the judge not to allow the testimony of these witnesses. However, the judge overruled their objection. The Defence didn’t bring forth witnesses who were area residents who supported the Freedom Convoy, though they said this would be easy to do.

One of the independent reporters in the court to hear the verdict read was Roxanne Halverson. She wrote that the verdict did not comment on how the federal government “unfairly and dishonestly slandered Convoy protesters calling them racists, extremists, terrorists and even Nazis — which may have had an impact on how people in Ottawa viewed the convoy.” [31]

Many Different ‘Convoys’

Both Tamara Lich and Chris Barber had FaceBook and TikTok accounts. However, it could not be confirmed if the people who liked or shared various communications were actual protesters in Ottawa, or members of the general public far removed from the protest. [32]

Throughout the trial it was the Crown’s position that the accused were not on trial for their political views, their objections to government policies. Instead, “they are on trial for the alleged unlawful means they employed to pursue their political ends.” The Freedom Convoy protest made Lich and Barber’s “words and actions in the protest…criminally culpable.” Moreover, the Crown argued that regardless of how “peaceful and respectful the conduct,” the duration of the protest exceeded reasonable limits to dwell on public space. [33]

Lawyers for the accused maintained that their clients were but “one group amongst many who came to Ottawa Jan/February 2022, and they could not control the actions of all the persons who came to Ottawa during this time. It is further argued that they only counselled persons to engage in peaceful protest, and to the extent some residents and businesspersons in downtown Ottawa were inconvenienced, it was said to be the fault of the police and city officials who mismanaged the situation. Further, on behalf of the accused, it is argued that the charges have not been proven on the evidence, to the criminal standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.” [34]

This view was expressed by Convoy leader Benjamin Dichter, who testified at the Public Order Emergency Commission in November 2022. He told the inquiry “There were many different groups, right? It wasn’t just one group, and every different group had their own idea.” [35]

Enjoyment of Property vs. Right to Protest

In considering what verdict to render, Justice Perkins-McVey asked “Did Lich and/or Barber interfere with the lawful use, operation, or enjoyment of property, or aid or abet others to do so?” [36]

The judge highlighted that “The Crown must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused committed the offence either as a principal or alternatively as a party to the offence along with others.” Consequently, neither Barber or Lich needed to do something that resulted in mischief, but inspire others at the protest to cause mischief. [37] She cited numbers of cases in her verdict, and summarized at one point “there must be a factual finding that supports the conclusion that an accused is a principal, aider, or abettor. Otherwise, a mere bystander with previous knowledge of a crime could be convicted.” [38] In addition, “willful blindness,” is not a defence when the accused should know whether the principal agitator intends to commit the offence. To be guilty of mischief, an “individual does not (have to) “hands-on” engage in mischief.” [39]

Importantly, in rendering a verdict of guilty of counselling to commit mischief, “It is an offence to counsel others to commit a criminal offence, and this is so even if the counselled offence is not committed.” [40] Counselling includes procuring, soliciting and inciting an act, even when it is not committed. Moreover, it is the state of mind of the person judged to have counselled mischief, not the state of mind of the person who was incited to commit mischief (even when no mischief was committed).

The judge noted that lawyers for the accused contend “that this case is unprecedented as the Crown has sought to criminalize the behaviour of Tamara Lich and Chris Barber and the lawful democratic purpose that thousands of Canadians sought to achieve over a three-week period. Defence counsel argue that this was always a lawful, peaceful protest and that the repeated and consistent message was one of peaceful protest and co-operation with police.” [41]

The judge sought a remedy in reaching her verdict with an appeal to the right to enjoyment of property rights. Not to the enjoyment of private property, but the enjoyment of public property. She stated, “At the heart of the competing interests in this case lies the question to what extent does the exercise of the right to protest protects those from criminal liability when the rights of other citizens to enjoy their property have been impacted by their actions. Even Charter-protected rights are not absolute.” [42] It should be noted that enjoyment of property rights, whether private or public, are not enshrined in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Justice Perkins-McVey concluded “There is no question that the evidence adduced at this trial establishes that the Trucks and truckers and persons who came to Ottawa created a mass mischief during the protest period and that what occurred significantly interfered with the lawful use and enjoyment of property.” [43] The verdict relies on the primacy of the enjoyment of public property over the right to free speech, and the right to peacefully assemble and protest. The lack of any interaction with Lich and Barber on the part of the Ottawa residents who testified was not a bar to being found guilty of mischief.

Who Makes the Noise?

In 2010, my home town of Vancouver hosted the Winter Olympics from February 12 to 28. There was a Pedestrian Village in the Olympic Zone. Spectators and members of the public who couldn’t afford tickets gathered each day from 7AM until 2AM. There was loud music from start to finish, with over 150,000 partiers on the last night alone. A CBC sub-headline read “Party continued till dawn.” [44] At Robson Square, “Experience BC” events were billed as “Vancouver’s biggest street party ever.” At the end of the 17-day-run, planners boasted over a million people took part in the almost non-stop festivities. [45] Local residents couldn’t hear their own music at peak volume in their apartments due to the outside noise. After midnight people caught up in the celebrations were screaming and yelling often until 3AM. But this was an international sporting event with government sponsorship. Consequently, local Vancouver residents near the Olympic Zone were basically told to endure the noise infractions. As my friend Judy Graves who lived near the corner of Robson Street and Thurlow Street recalled, “it was two weeks with only four hours of sleep a night.”

David Maybury is a resident in downtown Ottawa, living on Kent Street. He went for a walk the night of February 2, 2022, to get to know his new neighbours – protesters with the Freedom Convoy. He wrote, “I live in downtown Ottawa, right in the middle of the trucker convoy protest. They are literally camped out below my bedroom window. My new neighbours moved in on Friday and they seem determined to stay…. There is no honking at night…. after 6PM.” [46] To be sure, there was honking throughout the day, until the February 7th honking injunction. The Ottawa protesters were making noise to get someone to listen, since the government had refused all channels normally open in a democracy to allow citizens to discuss with lawmakers their concerns about public policy. Had the protesters been making noise in conjunction with an event like the Olympics – think of the downtown Vancouver residents in February 2010 enduring the biggest street party ever – presumably the message to Ottawa residents would have been to just put up with it. In Canada, on occasion, we put up with extended noise infractions depending on the reason for the disturbance.

Building the Case for a Guilty of Mischief Verdict

Citing a case in 2011 where Occupy Toronto protesters at a G-20 Summit camped out in a city park for three weeks, the City of Toronto served those protesters with a trespass notice. While the Occupy Toronto protests were cleared by police, no one was arrested for mischief. Toronto Star reporter Robyn Doolittle spoke to protesters in a city park on November 11, 2011. They told him, “I think the public outrage has been magnificently exaggerated. Teachers are bringing schoolchildren here all day to come and talk with us and learn why we’re here.” [47]

Citing a 1991 case of R v Drainville, Perkins-McVey told the court that a priest who was also a member of the Ontario Provincial Parliament was arrested for mischief after blocking a roadway for one hour. The length of the duration of obstructing a roadway is not grounds for a not guilty verdict, the judge told the court.

The judge highlighted that Section 430(1) of the Criminal Code states, “Everyone commits mischief who willfully [c…] obstructs, interrupts or interferes with the lawful use, enjoyment or operation of property.” [48]

She cited another Freedom Convoy related case R. v. Carr. where the judge ruled “the actions of the Freedom Convoy was causing continuing distress to the residents of the City of Ottawa and interfering with their right to lawful access to and use of public property.” [49]

In advancing the basis for a guilty verdict of counselling mischief, Perkins-McVey stated “Both Ms. Lich and Mr. barber are admitted leaders of the Freedom Convoy 2022…. Involved in organizing and leading trucks and other vehicles from western Canada.” They were also on the “Board of Directors Freedom Convoy 2022 corporation.” And Tamara Lich signed a letter to Mayor Jim Watson as “President of the Corporation” (Freedom Convoy). She also set up both the Convoy crowdfunding pages for Gofundme and Givesendgo. “There is no evidence that Ms. Lich had a vehicle emitting exhaust fumes or honked, or blocked egress to a building.” [50]

“Mr. Barber came to Ottawa in his truck “Big Red.” Big Red was parked on Wellington Street for approximately 11 days. I agree there is no evidence to support that he was blocking any street…” Elsewhere, Justice Perkins-McVey conceded that all protest vehicles were directed to park in position on Wellington Street (or adjacent streets) at the direction of the Ottawa Police. [51]

In her verdict, the court accepted that there were multiple “convoys” that showed up at the protests in Ottawa, and that the accused were “not able to influence or control all the truckers.” [52] Perkins-McVey noted Mr. Barber would have understood that police were pointing to where protest vehicles were to park. But beyond obeying police instructions to the protesters, the judge cited some of Barber’s social media statements. “We are completely messing up this town,” and “We fucked up this town,” indicated to the Court an interest not only in having a peaceful assembly, but also of mischief. [53]

Perkins-McVey cited a February 4, 2022 TikTok comment by Chris Barber where he stated “there’s a few people in high rises that don’t like horns and I apologize for that. I don’t know what else I can do to fix that.” In her view, “this…shows his awareness that residents are disturbed by that date.” [54]

As for Tamara Lich, the judge pointed to a social media post. Here Ms. Lich said to her followers, “so please, if you can donate, and help us keep these truckers going, you know we plan to be here for the long haul, as long as it takes to ensure your rights and freedoms are restored”. Perkins-McVey summarizes, that Lich, “makes it clear that the purpose of the funds is to allow truckers to stay longer in Ottawa and keep the protest going, to allow the trucks to stay where they are blocking the roads.” [55]

The judge also cites Ms. Lich’s letter to Ottawa Mayor Jim Watson. In her letter, Lich wrote “The truckers here in Ottawa have always been about peaceful protest. Many of the citizens and businesses in Ottawa have been cheering us on, but we’re also disturbing others that was never our intent with the freedom convoy. We agree with your request to reduce pressure on the residents and businesses in the city of Ottawa. We have made a plan to consolidate our protest efforts around Parliament Hill. We will be working hard over the next 24 hours to get by in from the truckers. We hope to start repositioning our trucks on Monday.” [56] According to the Court, Tamara Lich would, or should, have been aware that the protest was upsetting area residents.

Perkins-McVey acknowledged in her verdict that both of the accused worked actively with Ottawa police to reduce the footprint of the protest. She commented that “this may be a consideration down the line,” presumably in the context of any sentence handed down. [57]

At the Public Order Emergency Commission, Acting Deputy Chief of Ottawa Police, Patricia Ferguson, testified that the Ottawa Police were “caught off guard” when the RCMP was ordered to start cracking down on protestors, abruptly ending any chance of allowing the convoy to move out of the city peacefully. [58] However, policing decisions to impede tangible cooperation between the City of Ottawa and Freedom Convoy leaders did not significantly factor into the Court’s ruling.

In November 2022, Tamara Lich testified before the Public Order Emergency Commission. She told the inquiry that she joined the Freedom Convoy after failing to get a response from members of Parliament she emailed about ending COVID-19 restrictions. [59] Both Lich and Barber were peaceful and complied with officers when they were arrested. This was something the Court commended them for.

The Defence had argued that the purpose of the protest was communication to end the COVID mandates. Concurrent with the Trudeau government’s requirement in mid-January 2022 that unvaccinated truck drivers must quarantine for 14 days, “Neither Health Minister Jean-Yves Duclos nor Chief Public Health Officer Dr. Theresa Tam were able to provide any data about COVID-19 and truck drivers.” [60] Concurrent with the Freedom Convoy protests, according to Public Health Canada, several hundred people had died as a consequence of receiving the Covid-19 vaccine. (In its last posting about severe adverse reactions to the Covid-19 vaccine, Public Health Canada stated on its website “Up to and including January 5, 2024, a total of 488 reports with an outcome of death were reported ****following vaccination.”) [61]

Provincial Court Orders

In the case of Zeki Li v. Chris Barber, Benjamin Dichter, Tamara Lich, Patrick King and John Doe 1…, the court order of February 7, 2022, was brief. In the order Justice McLean stated “THIS COURT ORDERS that, provided the terms of this Order are complied with, the Defendants and other persons remain at liberty to engage in a peaceful, lawful and safe protest.” [62] Nowhere in the court order did the judge state the opposite, that his injunction pertained only to horn honking and has no impact on the right to remain at liberty to engage in a peaceful, lawful and safe protest.

Perkins-McVey argued in her verdict that the provincial injunctions by Justice McLean on February 7 and 16 were restricted to honking of horns. Yet, she cites McLean’s ruling of February 16 where he states outside his preamble, “I want to make sure but everybody knows from this, that when I said last week that there is a right to dissent, and there is a right to protest that exists, but it has to be balanced by the duty to the public. And that duty in this case is paramount to the duty of dissent. In other words, you can dissent as long as you don’t hurt people…” [63]

McLean was satisfied that the injunction of February 7 to stop honking horns had been adhered to. Otherwise, he would not have granted the right for protesters to continue protesting on February 16. Nonetheless, Justice Perkins-McVey insisted in rendering her verdict that “Justice McLean in no way, expressly or implicitly, endorses or declares that what was going on in the streets of Ottawa was peaceful, lawful, or safe.” [64]

It is noteworthy that the Crown chose only to charge Tamara Lich and Chris Barber in this case. Another named defendant in the Zeki Li court injunction of February 7, 2022 was Patrick King. He was charged on nine counts in a separate case by the Crown. King was found guilty of two counts of disobeying a court order and one each of mischief, counselling to commit mischief and counselling to obstruct a public or peace officer. [65]

A fourth named defendant in the Zeki Li February 7, 2022 court case is Benjamin Dichter. He told the Public Order Emergency Commission that he gave TV interviews during the Freedom Convoy with Tucker Carlson, Sean Hannity, NewsMax, and podcasts with Jordan Peterson, Gad Saad, Steven Crowder and Russia Today. Dichter also told the inquiry that “GoFundMe was me and Tamara…” He testified that Tamara Lich agreed that no one speaking for the Freedom Convoy was to communicate with the press “unless it’s approved by Benjamin and his team.” Dichter told the POEC that when the protest began, at “the start of the first weekend, me, Tamara and Chris were on the (main convoy) stage.” Though Dichter had a prominent role, and is one of the named defendants in the $300 million dollar class action lawsuit initiated by Zeki Li, he has not been charged by the Crown with mischief, counselling mischief or any other count. [66]

It may be that the Crown is interested in making an example Lich and Barber (and King), among others to send a message to the public. This is similar to the German governments’ prosecution of Covid dissident Reiner Fuellmich who was sentenced this April to 3 years and 9 months in prison. Celia Farber, commenting on the Fuellmich case observed “He did do something “wrong;” He challenged and unmasked the Covid Reich. So did many others—but they don’t persecute the “many—” they choose the one.” [67]

In this way, whether in Germany or here in Canada, the state doesn’t need to go after every one who protests. Since February 2022, the Crown has been charging protesters in connection with Freedom Convoy demonstrations either in Ottawa, Coutts (AB), or Windsor (ON). Each court case covered in the news keeps the official narrative about the Freedom Convoy alive.

On April 7, 2025, the Ontario Court of Appeal upheld the Charter rights of former Ontario MPP Randy Hillier. It found that Ontario’s blanket ban on outdoor gatherings during the 2021 COVID-19 lockdowns unjustifiably infringed on the freedom of peaceful assembly. Hillier was also a protester at the Freedom Convoy in Ottawa. [68] Meanwhile, the trial of trucker Harold Jonker resulted in a not guilty verdict on all charges in a ruling by Justice Kevin B. Phillips. In connection with the Ottawa protests, Jonker was charged with “mischief, obstructing a roadway, counselling mischief, and counselling obstructing a roadway.” [69]

The Verdict

Speaking to the packed courtroom, the judge announced “The Charge of counselling to commit the offence of mischief has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt for both accused.” [70] The judge ruled that one of the ways the mischief was carried out was the honking of horns. Tamara Lich never owned a truck or had a horn to honk. Yet, the judge reasoned the social media posts by the accused to encourage people to attend the protest was reason enough to find Tamara guilty of mischief. [71] “Ms. Lich and Mr. Barber were not merely engaging in political speech, rather they were inciting Freedom Convoy protesters to continue their ongoing blockade of downtown Ottawa inciting criminal mischief to put pressure on the government to drop COVID restrictions.” [72] However, the count of counselling to commit mischief was stayed, given the guilty charge of mischief.

The verdict was handed down some 38 months after the Freedom Convoy protests in Ottawa. A federal court ruled in January 2024 that the government in Ottawa acted illegally in the instance of its invocation of the Emergencies Act on February 14, 2022, and subsequent freezing of bank accounts. [73] But the government was not on trial.

The judge ruled there was no evidence that either Ms. Lich or Mr. Barber intended to intimidate or counsel others to do so, noting the absence of menace or violence in their conduct. Therefore, they were not guilty of intimidation or counselling intimidation. The Court also found the accused not guilty of charges of obstructing a peace officer under, and not guilty of counselling others to commit obstruction. The Court noted that both of the accused were arrested before the police removal operation began and not in a position to counsel anything from a jail cell.

Separately, Mr. Barber was convicted of counselling to commit the offence of disobeying a court order to stop honking horns. In the midst of rumours of a pending police crackdown (which did materialize on February 18, 2022), Barber advised on social media that protesters respond by honking their horns. Regardless of whether anyone honked a horn on February 18, Barber’s advice was sufficient enough for the Court to find him guilty of this second count.

On April 16, the Crown announced it is seeking two-year sentences in jail for both Lich and Barber for mischief. Separately, the Crown wants to confiscate and auction off Chris Barber’s truck, “Big Red.” [74]

Sentencing for Tamara Lich is scheduled for July 23rd and 24th before Justice Perkins-McVey in Ottawa. Meanwhile, Chris Barber has asked the Ontario Court of Justice for a Stay of Proceedings against him. He argues that the legal advice given to him by police officers in Ottawa, lawyers, and a Superior Court judge during the Freedom Convoy was erroneous. Consequently, his lawyers contend that the Crown is not entitled to convict him. His Stay of Proceedings will be heard in mid-May 2025. [75] Depending on the outcome of the Stay of Proceedings, Chris Barber may join Tamara Lich in court this July.

Charter Rights?

From this verdict it is clear that the courts view the enjoyment of public property as a priority over the right to peacefully assemble, or free speech. Since the pandemic began, citizens had tried to meet in person with politicians, and with public health officials. They were met with emails full of talking points about “safe and effective,” “follow the science,” and “the science is settled.” Politicians on the government side of the aisle were in no mood to discuss pandemic measures to constituents in local ridings. The discussion was over before it began.

After a long trajectory of restrictions on personal freedom, the right to make a living (if you were unvaccinated), the assertion that the unvaccinated posed a clear and present danger to the general public and more, there was growing unrest. Quarantine measures against unvaccinated truck drivers entering Canada, who drove alone in their trucks, was a final straw. Instead of appointing someone to meet with protest leaders in Ottawa, the government doubled down and called them the “unacceptable fringe minority, with Prime Minister Trudeau wondering if these people should be tolerated.

It was inconvenient for some parents in Ottawa to take more time to get their children to a hockey practice. It was certainly inconvenient for 120,000 small businesses to go bankrupt in 2020 in Canada as a consequence of lockdown measures. When normal avenues for resolution of controversial public policies are stonewalled, ordinary citizens have taken to public protest in the past. A public protest on the scale of the Freedom Convoy is a last resort. But can Canadian citizens do now that the courts are stating that 1) even protests of brief durations which prevent others enjoyment of public property constitute mischief, 2) those who cooperate with police are likely to end up in the crosshairs of legal action by the Crown, and 3) those who speak to the press on behalf of protesters will similarly be a target for legal punishment by the Crown?

Tamara Lich and Chris Barber did something wrong. They rallied Canadians to challenge the autocratic mandates, whether lockdown measures, vaccine mandates, PCR tests, masking and social distancing. A public discussion, what the protesters were asking for – protester representatives having a public event with Dr. Theresa Tam and other key Public Health officials and a meeting with representatives of the Liberal government – was something the government adamantly refused to do.

In his 1978 essay “The Power of the Powerless,” Czech dissident Vaclav Havel wrote about living in a communist dictatorship. He declared, “You do not become a dissident just because you decide one day to take up this most unusual career. You are thrown into it by your personal sense of responsibility, combined with a complex set of external circumstances. You are cast out of the existing structures and placed in a position of conflict with them. It begins as an attempt to do your work well, and ends with being branded an enemy of the state.” [76] Forty-seven years later, Tamara Lich and Chris Barber may resonate with Havel’s meditation on the fate of dissidents who end up in the crosshairs of the state. In future demonstrations against Canadian government measures, who will want to become the public face of a protest? Who will want to liaison with police to resolve issues that arise? Where will protesters be able to protest if cannot be on public property? Who will want to encourage others to attend a protest if they can be found guilty of mischief based on the actions of others in the crowd? Who will choose to fundraise on behalf of a protest?

Going forward, Canadian Charter rights to the freedom of peaceful assembly may take place only at the pleasure of the government. Meanwhile, another federal court found the Trudeau government acted unconstitutionally and illegally in its invocation of the Emergencies Act. So far there have been no consequences for their violation of basic rights of Canadians. The Liberals, elected to a fourth term on April 28, have so far escaped facing any consequences for their overreach in response to the Freedom Convoy.

References

1. Perkins-McVey, H.E., “Between His Majesty the King and Tamara Lich, Christopher Barber,” Ontario Court of Justice, April 3, 2025, 4-5. https://www.jccf.ca/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/2025-04-03-R.-v-Lich-and-Barber-Decision.pdf?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email
2. Ibid, 5.
3. Ibid, 2.
4. Ibid.
5. Ibid, 3-4.
6. Ibid, 8.
7. Ibid.
8. Ibid, 9.
9. Ibid, 11.
10. Ibid, 13.
11. Ibid, 24.
12. Ibid, 33.
13. Ibid, 34.
14. Ibid.
15. Ibid. 13.
16. Ibid, 14.
17. Ibid.
18. Ibid, 16.
19. “Lich Trial Highlights: October 12, 2023,” The Democracy Fund, October 12, 2023. https://www.thedemocracyfund.ca/trial_day_15
20. Perkins-McVey, 17.
21. “Lich Trial Highlights: October 12, 2023,” The Democracy Fund, October 13, 2023. https://www.thedemocracyfund.ca/trial_day_15
22. “Lich Trial Highlights: October 13, 2023,” The Democracy Fund, October 16, 2023. https://www.thedemocracyfund.ca/trial_day_16
23. Perkins-McVey, 19.
24. “Lich Trial Highlights: October 13, 2023,” (See note 20)
25. Perkins-McVey, 20.
26. “Lich Trial Highlights: October 13, 2023,” (See note 20)
27. Perkins-McVey, 21.
28. “Lich Trial Highlights: October 17, 2023: Day 18,” The Democracy Fund, October 18, 2023. https://www.thedemocracyfund.ca/trial_day_18
29. “Lich Trial Highlights: October 16, 2022: Day 17,” The Democracy Fund, October 17, 2023. https://www.thedemocracyfund.ca/trial_day_17
30. Perkins-McVey, 23.
31. Halverson, Roxanne, “Mischief Conviction for Lich and Barber Sends and Unsettling Message to Canadians,” The Intrepid Viking, April 5, 2025. https://substack.com/home/post/p-160603666
32. Ibid, 24-27.
33. Ibid, 27-33.
34. Ibid, 35.
35. “Freedom, politics, control and money: the many motivations of the ‘Freedom Convoy’,” City News, Ottawa, November 3, 2022. https://ottawa.citynews.ca/2022/11/03/freedom-politics-control-and-money-the-many-motivations-of-the-freedom-convoy-6048169/
36. Ibid, 35.
37. Ibid, 38.
38. Ibid, 40.
39. Ibid, 42.
40. Ibid, 43.
41. Ibid, 45.
42. Ibid.
43. Ibid, 61.
44. “Vancouver cleans up after Olympic party,” CBC, March 1, 2010. https://www.cbc.ca/amp/1.914428
45. “Experience BC at Robson Square: Vancouver 2010 Olympics,” PRPconnect.com. https://prpconnect.com/work/experience-bc-robson-square/#:~:text=Programming highlights included an original musical on,combined stunning visual technology and amazing acrobatics.&text=Hailed as “Vancouver’s biggest street party ever”%2C,a million visitors over its 17-day run.
46. Maybury, David, “A Night With the Untouchables,” The Reformed Physicist, February 3, 2022. https://maybury.ca/the-reformed-physicist/2022/02/03/a-night-with-the-untouchables/
47. “Occupy Toronto,” Wikipedia.org. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupy_Toronto#cite_note-13
48. Ibid, 53.
49. Ibid, 57.
50. Ibid, 60.
51. Ibid.
52. Ibid, 62.
53. Ibid, 63.
54. Ibid, 65.
55. Ibid, 68.
56. Ibid, 70.
57. Ibid, 71.
58. Claypool, Wyatt, “OPP Intel Superintendent Says “The Lack Of Violent Crime Was Shocking” During Freedom Convoy Protest,” National Telegraph, October 20, 2022. https://thenationaltelegraph.com/national/opp-intel-superintendent-says-the-lack-of-violent-crime-was-shocking-during-freedom-convoy-protest/
59. “Freedom, politics, control and money…”
60. Blanchfield, Mike and Stephanie Taylor, “Business groups urge feds to reverse vaccine mandates for cross-border truckers,” Global News, January 24, 2022. https://globalnews.ca/news/8535295/truckers-vaccine-mandate-business-groups/
61. “Reported side effects following COVID-19 vaccination in Canada,” Public Health Agency of Canada, January 19, 2024. See “Death” tab below subheading “Safety signals identified and other safety updates.” https://health-infobase.canada.ca/covid-19/vaccine-safety/
62. “READ COURT DOCUMENT: Lawyer says judge sees the Freedom Convoy protest as peaceful and lawful,” Farmers Forum, April 13, 2022. The court order of February 7, 2022, provided in full in this article. https://farmersforum.com/read-court-document-lawyer-says-judge-sees-the-freedom-convoy-protest-as-peaceful-and-lawful/
63. Fraser, David, “Pat King guilty of 5 charges for his role in Freedom Convoy,” CBC, November 22, 2024. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/pat-king-freedom-convoy-2022-charge-1.7389715
64. “Mr. Benjamin Dichter, Sworn,” Public Order Emergency Commission, November 3, 2022, 40-41, 49, 51, 101. https://publicorderemergencycommission.ca/files/documents/Transcripts/POEC-Public-Hearings-Volume-16-November-3-2022.pdf
65. Perkins-McVey, 52.
66. Ibid.
67. Farber, Celia, “The Sentencing of Reiner Fuellmich Was Entirely Predictable. I Make A Case Here Against Despair Or Despondency,” Truth Barrier, April 25, 2025. https://celiafarber.substack.com/p/the-sentencing-of-reiner-fuellmich
68. “A Victory for Freedom: Why the Hillier Decision Strengthens Canadian Democracy “ First Freedoms Foundation, April 19, 2025. https://firstfreedoms.ca/a-victory-for-freedom-why-the-hillier-decision-strengthens-canadian-democracy/
69. Tamara Ugolini, “Trucker Harold Jonker Acquitted in Freedom Convoy Case,” Rebel News, May 20, 2025. https://www.rebelnews.com/trucker_harold_jonker_acquitted_in_freedom_convoy_case
70. Perkins-McVey, 78.
71. Ibid, 84.
72. Ibid, 85.
73. Nardi, Christopher, “Court rules Liberals’ use of Emergencies Act was unjustified, unreasonable,” National Post, January 23, 2024. https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/liberal-governments-invoking-of-emergencies-act-during-freedom-convoy-unreasonable-unjustified-ruling
74. Horwood, Matthew, “Crown Seeking Two Years in Prison For Lich and Barber Following Mischief Verdict,” The Epoch Times, April 16, 2025.
75. “Chris Barber asks Court to stay proceedings against him,” Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms,” April 17, 2025. https://www.jccf.ca/chris-barber-asks-court-to-stay-proceedings-against-him/
76. Henry III, William A., “Vaclav Havel: Dissident to the President,” Time, January 8, 1990. https://time.com/archive/6713876/vaclav-havel-dissident-to-president/