00:16:41.620He talked about Nazi swastika flags, plural, as if they were prevalent, when in fact there is one flag displayed once briefly by an anonymous person who may well have been paid by opponents of Freedom Convoy.
00:16:57.080He talks about the economic disruption, kind of like Christia Freeland.
00:17:03.980I had to stop myself from throwing up when listening to her a few minutes ago when you were playing the videotape.
00:17:09.040You know, this is after governments have destroyed businesses, destroyed lives, destroyed livelihoods, they've imposed years of lockdowns on the country, they've inflicted massive harm, and then you get Justice Mosley and Chrystia Freeland.
00:17:25.180They actually have this compassion and sympathy for adverse economic impact on Ottawa businesses, which, you know, okay, fine, it's nice to see some sympathy, but it's so utterly removed from, like, they didn't care at all about economic harm when the federal government was inflicting, and provincial governments were inflicting economic harm on Canadians.
00:17:48.020anyway all of that to say the judge did not like freedom convoy didn't like the truckers didn't
00:17:54.360like the other non-trucker canadians that were there but then he says look i gotta look at the
00:17:59.800facts and even though there was some you know hardship and inconvenience uh clearly the federal
00:18:05.000government did not meet the necessary criteria to uh to be able to validly use the emergencies
00:18:12.640act and so this judge is effectively signaled to the federal court of appeal that you know hey i'm
00:18:19.900with you guys i'm part of the ottawa establishment i'm part of the ottawa elite i knew that that the
00:18:25.800truckers are really bad but i'm still ruling against the federal government based on the facts
00:18:30.240so that makes it very hard for the federal government to appeal so i'd say the chances
00:18:35.080of them winning are small but i'm not making any predictions
00:18:38.580well again i mean i'm i'm concerned i was just saying that i think before you got on i i am
00:18:44.980concerned about it only because obviously my personal uh trust in the justice system is a
00:18:50.340little bit tainted um and and justice mostly did make that decision and retired shortly thereafter
00:18:57.140if i'm not mistaken mistaken well i mean i think it's important to remember that the
00:19:05.620The decision of Justice Mosley that the evocation of the Emergency Act was ultra-revious, the Constitution wasn't appropriate, will be reviewed on reasonableness standards, which is sometimes confusing for non-lawyers.
00:19:27.480But basically, the government has to show that this decision may not have been perfect, but it was reasonable at the time and in the circumstances.
00:19:36.940And I've done a number of judicial reviews, and I kind of have PTSD from them because that is slippery.
00:22:27.540When the Emergencies Act was invoked, the Windsor and the Coutts were completely, totally resolved.
00:22:34.160Like, the only thing that was going on was still this local protest only in Ottawa.
00:22:40.560And even there, as Chris and Tamara know, you had negotiated a deal for moving the trucks out, and then the federal government still invoked the Emergencies Act, even when this deal was in place.
00:22:56.400But yeah, there was nothing national about it at this point in time when it was invoked.
00:23:02.120The Coots and Windsor thing had been completely resolved.
00:23:06.480Yes, and like you said, we made a deal with the city.
00:23:10.200sorry Tamara go ahead no that's okay um I totally lost my train of thought but um
00:23:15.800yeah the deal was made with the city all that stuff was cleaned up oh yeah that was my point
00:23:21.160and um like it was it was literally it was probably more than six city blocks in downtown
00:23:27.320Ottawa but it was just really kept to that little location because I remember we had to leave
00:23:31.920the red zone on a few occasions and as soon as you got down Lord or Elkin Street I mean you
00:23:38.040wouldn't even have known that there was a protest happening like once you got out of the red zone
00:23:42.660it was business as usual in ottawa so once again i mean i mean one of the other things was a threat
00:23:48.460to the to the economy but i mean even that's been disproved and as any truck driver will know i mean
00:23:54.680one of the one of the justifications was you know they couldn't get their auto parts across
00:23:58.560across the bridge so it was affecting uh affecting our economy but a truck driver you know if he's
00:24:05.920driving through a snowstorm or he's he's comes upon an accident or a detour he just finds a
00:24:11.120different way and that's exactly what he did so yeah it's yes i'm pretty i'm nervous about it
00:24:18.180honestly well we know how the government can can put a judge into a position it seems like to have
00:24:24.760the ruling that they want we've seen that for the last number of years under this this regime
00:24:28.520so next steps then i guess um i mean this this could go either way um i think it's going to be
00:24:37.620fantastic news if they uphold justice mosley's ruling and so if that is the case and they uphold
00:24:43.460this is kind of what i want to talk with you guys about is you know what is this does this look like
00:24:47.720going forward if it's upheld and what does this look like going forward for canadians and their
00:24:52.820right to protest or you know it's it's really would lower the bar for the for indicating or
00:24:58.660invoking the emergencies act um going forward so if we if we do get a win tomorrow i mean
00:25:06.180is the government going to be opened up to a whole bunch of lawsuits you know what's what do
00:25:10.180you foresee happening go ahead john i think the we we need the lower court ruling to be upheld
00:25:18.980to prevent us from further sliding into modern fascism literally because this is this is where
00:25:27.080we're heading right now you know with the bills c2 c8 c9 strong borders act cyber security act
00:25:36.300combating hate act the government promising to bring back the online harms act formerly bill
00:25:42.580C63. All of this legislation is rapidly making us like the United Kingdom where you get over 30
00:25:50.080people arrested every day or criminally charged every day over their Facebook posts, their social
00:25:55.920media commentary. So this is really crucial that the government be held to a very high standard.
00:26:03.060The Emergencies Act in and of itself is good legislation that allows for a way for the
00:26:11.740federal government to deal with a true emergency if the existing law enforcement powers can't
00:26:16.500handle it. So if you have a unique situation, I don't know what that would be. I mean, maybe if
00:26:21.300there are forest fires in all 10 provinces at the same time, I don't know. But if there's a true
00:26:27.820emergency, there's something there. But if the federal government can get away with invoking
00:26:34.520the emergencies act over what is a peaceful local protest in ottawa which in in my view
00:26:43.560and i wasn't there but i think it did inconvenience some people in ottawa and maybe for a small number
00:26:49.160of people it did cause some real hardship for some people in ottawa but that's not a national
00:26:55.080emergency so i just think it's really important for preserving the free society i think it's
00:27:01.100important that we win tomorrow with the federal court uh upholding the lower court ruling if that
00:27:09.100doesn't happen it's it's just very very bad news for the country and and for democracy because it
00:27:16.040it will say that governments really don't need good reasons to have a massive crackdown on a
00:27:22.260peaceful protest yeah agreed agreed mark anything to add yeah i i agree with john that is an
00:27:31.640important decision i think whoever loses is going to appeal so if the government loses like they'll
00:27:37.320run off to the supreme court and who knows what's going to happen at that point but yeah john's right
00:27:41.960we need we need a strong ruling here so that the the standard to invoke or infringe your civil
00:27:50.200liberties is, or the threshold is going to be high because, as John mentioned, the government
00:27:57.600is moving aggressively to erode our civil liberties through various pieces of legislation.
00:28:02.780And so we need a court that's going to be much less deferential to the use of government
00:28:08.020power, is going to be skeptical, and is going to force the government to prove their case
00:28:17.940and not just take judicial notice of COVID policies, proclamations by health officials,
00:28:25.800and will strictly interpret the words of the Constitution and not simply say that, you know,
00:28:34.600we're going to invoke some charter values here. It's the words on the paper that have to mean
00:28:38.680something. And if those words, those civil liberties are given a fact by the judiciary,
00:28:46.500then then we're in trouble so yeah there is avenues going forward right can you guys tell
00:28:53.120us who it is that's arguing this case uh who brought it up in the first place uh who filed
00:28:58.680and who's been arguing it the whole time the well the justice center was involved in the lower court
00:29:06.740decision and then uh we got important evidence before the court about the freezing of bank
00:29:12.720accounts and then um after that favorable ruling the client switched to to different lawyers so
00:29:21.600the justice center is not currently directly involved but we certainly played a big role
00:29:26.480in the the lower court decision good yes if i remember correctly you had uh you also had a case
00:29:34.240where were you representing eddie cornell uh benson gear sees um that was pertaining to this
00:29:40.720as well was it not yeah i think there's a civil action for damages on the go and i think that
00:29:46.640that's uh bathsheba vandenberg and perhaps blair echter but i'm not 100 sure that are doing this
00:29:53.840uh civil action right okay well we appreciate 136 000 lawyers in canada right now for the most part
00:30:02.800most of the lawyers in this country are trained to never question authority or the government
00:30:06.960am i correct in saying that that seems to be largely the uh the spirit that now reigns it
00:30:14.640wasn't always the case like it used to be that lawyers lawyers were the annoying ones that were
00:30:19.860always questioning authority and always coming up with good reasons to you know to to uh kind of
00:30:26.380poke the pig or you know disobey authority and uh that's kind of what i thought of lawyers as being
00:30:33.240when i was growing up in the 70s and 80s i thought you know the lawyer is the guy that that that says
00:30:38.320never surrender and he's he's always got to come back he's always going to keep on fighting
00:30:42.120he's going to question authority he's going to challenge authority uh but the last 20 years it's
00:30:47.920been uh gonna blind obedience to uh whatever uh government says the the lawyers are there to
00:30:55.680uh enforce government edicts rather than question them is the way it seems to be now
00:31:01.800It's been that slippery slope for maybe more than 10 years, and just the liberals have been power, right?
00:31:06.400Yeah, I would echo some of John's observations.
00:31:10.740We heard anecdotally from our clients that we represented for charges arising out of the Freedom Convoy that they had trouble getting a lawyer, that lawyers didn't want to take these cases.
00:31:25.520And so organizations like the JCCF and TDF were among the few that would represent these clients.
00:31:34.100And there should be no reason for that.
00:31:36.440I mean, lawyers should be skeptical and a little cantankerous.
00:31:41.520I mean, Christopher Hitchens said, try to wake up every day slightly annoyed.
00:31:46.720That's kind of how you should be as a lawyer.
00:31:50.080You shouldn't accept what the government tells you.
00:31:52.720You should require them to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt in the criminal situation.
00:31:59.060And lawyers shouldn't be influenced by fear of political, I guess, disfavor when they take a client.
00:32:07.920And so I don't know what's going on, but I want to see a lot more, I guess, obstinance or contrarian positions taken by lawyers.
00:32:20.860And I don't know how we got here, but lawyers should be annoyed by the use of government power.
00:46:51.820So, you know, it is shocking to see it, but I don't think anybody should be surprised, especially with the rhetoric coming out of, you know, both the U.S. government, the Canadian government towards each other.
00:47:03.740This is just basically, you know, your average Thursday in politics between Canada and the United States, unfortunately, which is shocking to the consciousness for anybody who has ever traveled to the United States.
00:47:18.360or had American guests come in their home.
00:47:21.400And I mean, we have a deep, long-standing history.
00:47:24.240I mean, God, we just spent 20 years fighting the GWAT
00:52:27.060constitutional issues and then the standard gets a little higher it can be uh correctness but for
00:52:31.940the most part here we're talking about reasonable so so that's that's a a higher standard that the
00:52:38.100the losing party um has to has to has to meet they have to say okay fine this this decision
00:52:45.220wasn't it may not have been correct um but but it was still reasonable okay so that's the
00:52:51.540government's position here that this was fell amongst a range of decisions and and fine it
00:52:58.100might have been correct but it was reasonable so they have an easier task to prove uh here
00:53:04.660there's that's because the legislation set these uh these these laws up so that that courts don't
00:53:14.980have to hear all these appeals that the courts will defer to the administrative bodies here.
00:53:23.060That's what's going on, because they assume that the administrative bodies of tribunals
00:53:27.560have expert views. So they have expertise in their area, right, that they're dealing
00:53:34.660with. So that's really what the government, that's what they have to prove, that this
00:53:40.880was fine. It was correct, but it was reasonable. And that's an easier task for them than would
00:53:47.960otherwise be the case. So the POEC was triggered by, you know, one of the sections in when you
00:53:58.220invoke the Emergencies Act, you must conduct a commission in review. Like that's by law. That's
00:54:03.820from what I understand. But it was originally regular citizens like Eddie Cornell and Vince
00:54:09.900in the in the third gentleman i can't remember his name they they launched the judicial review
00:54:15.460which is what was explained to me is that if you if you do a judicial review it's like
00:54:20.740you're not really filing a lawsuit against the government or you're not you know as a citizen
00:54:28.100pressing charges against the government what you're doing is demanding accountability on a
00:54:33.240decision that your government has made that's the way i understand it and that judicial review
00:54:39.120actually from my understanding does have teeth where the poac is just a report that went into
00:54:45.320justin trudeau's desk and said yeah i'm still a good guy roulo told me i'm still a good guy and
00:54:51.020awesome but what um mosley did was a very very different thing it actually has like its own
00:54:57.780force and effect it's it's legally binding and now we're seeing like what you're talking about
00:55:02.480is the appeal so we're waiting to hear the appeal decision but you know had those first uh
00:55:08.680citizens or people that participated in a convoy had they not launched the judicial review
00:55:14.040or filed it there would be there'd be no action taken so that was a the reason this is important
00:55:20.040it's because it's a mechanism where the citizens could challenge the decision of the government
00:55:25.320whereas the poec the poec was uh mandatory it's in the legislation for the ea and it's toothless
00:55:33.960it's irrelevant. He could have said, yeah, Justin Trudeau, you're a horrible human being
00:55:38.360and it still wouldn't have mattered. It had no consequence, no force or effect of any kind.
00:55:43.400Yeah, the POAC was a public review and it wasn't a legal review. The legal review occurred in this
00:55:55.800case so justice mosley applied uh judicial tools to the analysis um and and so that you had
00:56:05.480examination cross-examination subpoena powers um he he applied his uh legal analysis to the facts
00:56:15.400and arrived at his conclusion that this was the proclamation of the order emergency order was was
00:56:21.240ultra-virus the constitution wasn't reasonable and that's a significant legally significant
00:56:27.800ruling whereas the poec generally was not it didn't have the same wasn't the same mechanism
00:56:34.120abused so as john mentioned this is going to be an important decision for that reason because a
00:56:39.000legal scholar a judge a very esteemed judge looked at it applied the proper legal analysis
00:56:46.200and came to the conclusion that the government was wrong
00:56:48.120that's exactly the opposite exactly the opposite of what uh reloaded
00:56:57.600um a jim stole stolen i think sorry if i'm mispronouncing your name jim um strawn maybe
00:57:05.180it was asked is there is there appeal options if tomorrow goes badly
00:57:11.020oh i could take a stab at that yeah whoever whichever side loses is at liberty to apply
00:57:22.320to have it heard by the supreme court of canada the supreme court of canada only hears uh about
00:57:29.000five percent maybe it was three percent seven percent but it's a less than ten percent of the
00:57:33.440cases uh so there's a two-step process first you go to the supreme court and you say will you hear
00:57:38.760our appeal and then the court says yes or no 95 of the time they say no if they say yes it doesn't
00:57:47.720mean they'll rule in your favor it just means that they're going to hear it so whichever side
00:57:53.640loses tomorrow has that option to ask the supreme court of canada to hear it whether the supreme
00:58:01.580court of canada will or not uh is you know who knows typically what they look for or what they're
00:58:09.820supposed to look for is an issue of national importance where the you have conflicting rulings
00:58:18.460in different provinces so for example courts in ontario and british columbia have said that the
00:58:24.940canadian charter of rights and freedoms does not apply to universities in alberta the courts have
00:58:30.980ruled that the charter does apply to universities there would be an example of something where the
00:58:36.600supreme court would you know might take that on and and just decide whether the charter applies
00:58:41.880to universities or not because you've got conflicting rulings from different provinces
00:58:45.980now with this particular case yeah i wouldn't you know whoever loses they have to dress it up
00:58:53.960in a way as as that there is some significant point of law that is of national importance
00:59:01.320um so i don't uh i don't know if the supreme court would even hear it uh you know they may
00:59:10.560or may not but that's a two-step process so it's open to apply if the supreme court says no uh
00:59:15.820we're not going to hear it then that's the end of it and it just stays at this level of of the
00:59:22.620federal court of appeal so do you think that it's concerning because um i mean chief justice
00:59:29.480richard wagner said in an uh in a piece for the devoir out of quebec um he basically or very
00:59:37.740early on you know laid out his feelings about us 100 and i'm controlling anarchy and chaos
00:59:44.380yes and so i mean this is why you know i think um yeah going to the supreme court i mean i guess
00:59:52.860they're not all bad i don't know but or i shouldn't say bad but i mean it's concerning it's concerning
00:59:59.500for me knowing um how he feels about this whole situation um of it going to the supreme court i
01:00:04.940mean there's they might it just might make it easier for them to to hear an appeal so
01:00:10.220So that's just my guess is if it gets overturned and the liberals want to appeal it, I'm very confident that the Supreme Court will hear it.
01:00:22.280But if it gets overturned or sorry, if it stays the same and it doesn't get overturned, my feeling that's my prediction because I'm a cynic when it comes to the government.
01:00:34.080i'm a die-hard cynic but but my feeling is that if it um if our you know vince and eddie want to
01:00:41.440appeal it to the supreme court my feeling is that they won't hear it now no matter what if it does
01:00:47.600magically make its way to the supreme court i i don't know from like what we just discussed about
01:00:53.840uh wagner's disparaging remarks in real time as the convoy was happening uh like how do you now
01:01:02.240i think we talked about this the last time you guys were on uh mark and john like how do you
01:01:09.040your chief justice has made public disparaging marks about a matter that's now before him in
01:01:15.040his court how does he not recuse himself and if he does does he get a replacement
01:01:20.560and if he doesn't like should should one of the teams say look you need to recuse yourself there
01:01:27.680you've already displayed your bias and it's been made public so you put yourself into a real pickle
01:01:33.120so you know we're he put himself into that position but i don't i i don't want to see
01:01:39.040the public suffer because richard wagner used uh extremely poor judgment well a lawyer a lawyer
01:01:48.080acting on behalf of tamara leach or chris barber or anybody involved in the the freedom convoy
01:01:55.760protest, the lawyer or lawyers in the Supreme Court would put forward an application to have
01:02:04.180Chief Justice Wagner recuse himself. Now, he might not recuse himself. However, if he doesn't,
01:02:13.400it weakens the moral authority of whatever ruling the court may issue. So that's about all you can
01:02:20.740do. I mean, there are complaints were filed against him with the Canadian Judicial Council,
01:02:24.760which is supposed to be you know looking at the behavior of judges and he should be reprimanding
01:02:31.580and he's the head of that and he doubled down and he didn't apologize and it's just disgraceful that
01:02:38.580that he publicly made those comments he's entitled to his opinion right anybody living in ottawa
01:02:45.300including a supreme court judge if they didn't like freedom convoy they're entitled to their
01:02:49.400own opinion about that and they can share that with their friends and family over coffee over
01:02:52.980dinner but in terms of public comments it's just a disgrace that he did that but what what we can do
01:02:59.520on our side whichever case you know it might not be the the ruling that we're getting tomorrow that
01:03:05.340goes to the supreme court it might be something else that goes to the supreme court but the lawyers
01:03:09.480should put forward um an application for the chief justice to recuse himself and then if he doesn't
01:03:16.100And it also, it undermines and diminishes the authority of what the court comes out with.
01:03:23.460So there's still a little bit of justice in that sense.
01:03:28.760I think you're going to have to just set him out in the hallway and he can just admire his bust.
01:03:33.240yeah yeah usually people insist on you know it's like after you've retired that you're
01:03:45.700you know not not while you're still in charge yeah pretty pathetic exactly yeah any thoughts
01:03:51.360mark on that well i mean it it always surprised me as a young lawyer to learn that that you're
01:03:58.220asking a judge to rule uh on their own bias right they i don't i don't think you often are successful
01:04:07.000in those but that's basically what you're doing i mean i'll break my lawyerly demeanor here and
01:04:12.700reveal my nerdy side but they actually made a a scene in a movie about that right you remember
01:04:18.140uh the reboot of star trek where where uh spock says finally okay i've watched my planet get
01:04:23.940destroyed, I'm psychologically compromised, I'm morally compromised, I cannot use good
01:04:28.380judgment, right? That's basically the only time we've ever seen someone say, all right,
01:04:33.100fine, I can't be objective about this. So if you're going to a judge and you're asking
01:04:37.380them, hey, can you rule on your objectivity, please? Usually, the judge says, oh, no, I
01:04:44.400can be objective. So I don't know what's going to happen. But yes, John's right. That's what
01:04:47.760would do well i think fundraising would be uh in order unfortunately i mean we've asked so much
01:04:55.920from the public and they've always responded um but for for the team that um you know the the
01:05:03.040public you know eddie and and everybody if it does come to that uh i'd like to be involved in helping
01:05:09.840with the fundraising to help them take this case to the supreme court because we can't ask three
01:05:14.160people to fund this out of their own pocket because in my view it is of national interest
01:05:19.180it impacts every single canadian whether you're a lefty or a righty it's important for the future
01:05:24.960of this country and or what's you know what is left to be the future of this country but
01:05:29.720it has to go to the end if the decision is overturned tomorrow i i think it has to be
01:05:36.760it has it it's got to go to the supreme court if if we lose tomorrow
01:05:42.020in my view do we got to cut you loose and then we we promised we'd have you out of here by seven
01:05:48.160and we didn't want to push that at all yeah privilege to have you as long as we have yes
01:05:53.820i really just thank you so much for especially on such short notice and you guys i don't know
01:05:59.000if you saw but um it is convoy anniversary time and i just want to recognize the handful of lawyers
01:06:06.520um like i tweeted to eva chipia the other night you know um if it wasn't for you guys i shudder
01:06:12.500to thank the position that we would all be in now had you guys not phone to ottawa had the
01:06:18.040democracy fund lawyers not stepped up some a handful of lawyers in ottawa that showed up
01:06:22.600and so for believing in us and for believing in the cause and for it literally risking everything
01:06:30.400and sacrificing so much I know I know a lot of lawyers good lawyers that you
01:06:36.280know sacrificed a lot to come and help us there so the bottom of our hearts I
01:06:41.620never thought I'd have so many lawyers in my life and I have zero regrets I
01:06:46.180don't care what they say about you guys I think you're all fabulous so thank you
01:06:49.960thank you thank you thanks for the kind words I'll pass it on to Alison Pavek
01:06:57.640and some of the others that were with you.
01:26:27.980Okay. Okay. I'll double check with everyone tonight.
01:26:30.78010.45 Eastern is what she's told me here from my link. So I will, regardless of that,
01:26:37.020I will be in tomorrow morning. I am at home tomorrow. I work in a community service tomorrow
01:26:41.500afternoon so i'll be in to say hi to everybody and i got a little bit of paperwork to do in the
01:26:45.820morning get payroll out and uh do some more work on the truck i've got some wiring issues on red
01:26:50.780like i said it needs a service grease job go through it fine tooth comb got a lot of stuff
01:26:55.260around the yard to do so with the warm weather all of our holes in the ground are filling with
01:26:59.340water and maybe make sure all sump pumps are working so hey i got one last thing to say carney
01:27:05.660is in china there's a book you might want to buy bring that up again i'm going to make it big do
01:27:20.220that again tom we didn't catch all of it i got your full screen here now there you go the people's
01:27:25.180emergency plan by tom arazzo people's emergency plan tom arazzo yes get it today don't forget
01:27:33.340alberta's alberta's uh david redmond helped me with this book yes yes yeah yeah he did a lot
01:27:40.860of good work to help me with this book yes great guy yeah yes yeah yes okay everybody well you guys
01:27:48.620have a great week um it is uh the convoyversary now going on forward for the next few weeks so
01:27:53.900So, I mean, don't be surprised if we just decide that we're going to pop on and do a live stream, because we've talked about that, you know, just whenever we feel like it, if we've got something to say or some memory strikes us or whatever.
01:28:05.000So we'll definitely be around. But thanks for coming, Tom. And I will see you for sure in the morning, Chris.
01:28:11.520Thank you to the community and everybody for coming out and supporting us tonight.
01:28:15.280it was nice to see all of you and a huge thanks once again to our guests john carpe president of
01:28:20.240the justice center for constitutional freedoms and mark joseph a senior litigator location
01:28:25.680director for the democracy fund so thanks everyone have a great night and we'll catch you next week