Juno News - March 30, 2024


Freedom Convoy trucker convicted of mischief two years after Emergencies Act

Mentioned
Jason Vanderveer David Anber Chris Barber Andrew Lawton Tamara Leach Jay Vanderweer Vandeweer
Liberal bill would give MPs tens of millions in extra pensions Is Trudeau being honest about his climate policy？

Episode Stats


Length

13 minutes

Words per minute

174.0

Word count

2,316

Sentence count

135

Harmful content

Misogyny

1

sentences flagged


Summary

Summaries generated with gmurro/bart-large-finetuned-filtered-spotify-podcast-summ .

Jason Vanderveer, a member of the Freedom Convoy, has been found guilty of mischief for his part in the destruction of a broadcast shed on the back of the convoy. Andrew and David Anbert discuss the outcome of the trial and what it means for the future of the case.

Transcript

Transcript generated with Whisper (turbo).
Misogyny classifications generated with MilaNLProc/bert-base-uncased-ear-misogyny .
Hosts, guests, and mentioned names generated with spaCy (en_core_web_sm), reconciled against Wikidata.
00:00:00.000 All right, we will shift gears here.
00:00:10.880 There was a bit of a development on the Freedom Convoy legal front last week.
00:00:16.060 Now, I've been speaking on this show periodically about the seemingly never-ending trial of Tamara Leach and Chris Barber.
00:00:23.620 They went on trial supposedly for 13 days in September, but it is now the end of March.
00:00:30.000 And their trial is still underway, although it's not every day.
00:00:33.200 It's on and off.
00:00:34.100 They'll do a couple days at a time and whatnot.
00:00:36.340 But it is easy to forget that there are other cases that have a lot less publicity around them, but are still stemming from those same three weeks in Ottawa.
00:00:47.360 Now, one of those came to a bit of an end, at least to some extent, last week.
00:00:51.360 It was the trial of Jason Vanderveer, Jay Vanderveer as he goes by.
00:00:56.280 He was one of the participants in the Freedom Convoy protest.
00:01:00.000 Now, one of his contributions, and I only learned this after the fact, but let's put up the cover of my book on the convoy.
00:01:08.600 So this is the Freedom Convoy, the inside story of three weeks that shook the world.
00:01:12.760 Pardon the shameless plug.
00:01:13.580 But you can see there's a shed on the back of that one truck there.
00:01:18.420 That shed was actually a rather pivotal role in the convoy.
00:01:22.920 It was a multimedia studio.
00:01:24.820 It was live streaming.
00:01:25.900 It was doing all of that.
00:01:27.380 And there's a connection between that shed and the man I wanted to speak about in this particular segment.
00:01:32.740 Now, David Anbert joins me.
00:01:34.860 He is a criminal lawyer, very prominent commentator on Twitter as well.
00:01:39.220 And he was the legal representative of Mr. Vanderveer.
00:01:44.020 David, it's good to talk to you.
00:01:45.440 Thanks for coming on today.
00:01:47.240 Thanks for having me, Andrew.
00:01:48.620 Now, I should just say I actually testified in this trial just by way of disclosure.
00:01:54.220 And my testimony was effectively my own experiences and things that I saw as a journalist covering this.
00:02:00.360 But let me ask you what happened last week.
00:02:03.400 What was the judge's finding here?
00:02:05.900 So after the trial, you testified you were, I think, on day two of what was ultimately a four-day trial.
00:02:13.120 There were different sort of pieces to the puzzle that came together, different testimony about the beginning, the middle, the end of the convoy.
00:02:22.040 And ultimately, we made arguments that a mischief had not been made out.
00:02:27.580 Certainly, Jason's participation in a mischief had not been made out.
00:02:33.340 And even if it had been made out in the alternative, we argued that there were two sections of the criminal code that permitted either one to act with color of right or one to act in the course of delivering a message.
00:02:48.880 And I argued that the evidence certainly established that that's what the convoyers were engaged in doing.
00:02:57.860 The judge rejected all four of our arguments and ultimately found the Crown had proven beyond a reasonable doubt that there was a mischief, that Jason was involved in it to the requisite level of attracting criminal guilt.
00:03:12.380 And he did not find that there was color of right or that the other section applied.
00:03:18.380 So he found Jason guilty.
00:03:21.100 And now the case, I mean, it's you said brought to a conclusion.
00:03:25.260 It still has one more step is because he has now been found guilty, regardless of what you think about that, the court has found him guilty.
00:03:32.260 And as a result, there will be a sentence that's going to be imposed.
00:03:36.160 He will, of course, have the chance to appeal.
00:03:39.240 And that's something that he is looking into doing.
00:03:42.560 What is this?
00:03:43.780 I mean, mischief was something that a lot of people who are not criminal lawyers had really first heard in the context of the convoy.
00:03:50.200 And I know it's not a new charge.
00:03:51.440 But what actually is mischief in a criminal sense?
00:03:54.640 And how does that apply to the freedom convoy where we've heard it come up both in Jason's case and also the cases of Tamara Leach and Chris Barber and others?
00:04:03.380 Right.
00:04:04.040 OK, so mischief, we most commonly see it in criminal law involving the destruction of property.
00:04:10.020 You know, if you get an argument with someone and let's say they want to record you on their phone and you don't like that.
00:04:16.260 So you grab the phone from their hand and smash it into the ground.
00:04:19.240 That could be mischief or punching a hole in the wall could be considered mischief.
00:04:24.000 But if you go in and read the section, there are other ways in which a mischief can be committed.
00:04:29.340 And one of the well-established ones is by interfering with the lawful enjoyment of property.
00:04:36.940 And I think that was the angle that the Crown came at this from.
00:04:40.620 They actually had two counts that basically with slightly different wordings said the same thing.
00:04:47.200 One said that it basically interfered with the lawful enjoyment of the property, Wellington, Parliament Hill, the downtown area.
00:04:56.580 And that also interfered with the citizens of Ottawa's lawful enjoyment of the property.
00:05:02.760 And so, I mean, he was found guilty of both.
00:05:04.720 But because they're so closely related, he can only be sentenced on one of them.
00:05:10.220 Effectively, the conduct that leads to one inextricably leads to the other.
00:05:15.240 And so he's only going to get sentenced on one of those counts on which he was found guilty.
00:05:19.360 And so what is meant by interfering with the lawful enjoyment is that it was the Crown's theory that people could not enjoy the public property, downtown Ottawa.
00:05:33.200 That roads could not be traveled.
00:05:35.820 That good night's sleeps could not be had because of the constant honking.
00:05:40.140 That there was the inability to access certain roads.
00:05:49.060 And what's interesting about this trial compared to maybe some of the more high profile trials like you talked about, the Tamara Leach trial,
00:05:57.020 is the Crown actually led very little evidence in this particular case.
00:06:02.460 In fact, it led to so little evidence, the judge even said, that it wasn't for the evidence, both of the defense.
00:06:09.620 But, I mean, we wouldn't have called that evidence if they also didn't have some in their case.
00:06:14.480 And the judge also pointed to the fact that Mr. Vandeweer had posted videos on social media himself.
00:06:20.500 If it wasn't for that evidence, there would have been really no evidence of what the actual mischief was.
00:06:27.880 I mean, again, the defense had to call the evidence because the Crown would have and did call the evidence that Jason had posted.
00:06:36.840 And so without any response, the conviction would have almost been certain, at least on this judge's analysis of the law.
00:06:44.980 And so we argued that they didn't really prove the mischief.
00:06:52.980 And in fact, one thing that was actually interesting was, you may recall, there was a video montage that I put to you about some misinformation that went on during the convoy to such an extent that numerous members of Parliament and the NDP and the Liberal Party kept talking about this arson case, arson.
00:07:16.220 They kept repeating this lie that the convoys had been involved in arson.
00:07:20.800 I put that to you, and there was actually a point where the judge intervened, and we had to address this in your absence, where the judge was suggesting to me that I was essentially, you know, putting up a straw man, that no one was suggesting that anyone was engaged in arson.
00:07:36.980 But my response to the judge was that one of the reasons we're trying to put this forward is that the Crown in other cases has asked the court to take judicial notice to accept without hearing evidence certain facts, such as the fact that Ottawa was occupied or Ottawa was the subject of this large scale mischief where people couldn't get to their homes or couldn't sleep at night without even hearing evidence of people saying those things.
00:08:04.620 And I explained to the judge that whenever, if the Crown were to approach him, approach the court and ask the court to take judicial notice, or even if the Crown wanted to ask the court just to draw inferences about the convoy, that the court should be very guarded to do so because of the prevalence of misinformation.
00:08:23.620 That's what that evidence sought to establish.
00:08:26.620 And I thought that that was clear to the judge.
00:08:29.620 One comment he made, which is going to be interesting to look at if this matter goes to appeal, is that in response to one of my arguments, the judge made the comment that said you'd have to be living under a rock to not be aware of the intrusion that this caused.
00:08:46.620 And that's exactly what judicial notice is that we don't necessarily have to hear evidence of it, that everybody knows that this is what happens.
00:08:54.620 And that that's the type of, of finding that the court shouldn't have been able to make.
00:08:59.620 And so certainly that's something we're going to look at when deciding whether or not to appeal.
00:09:05.620 Just to jump in on that point, David, because one of the problems here is that you do have in a lot of these cases that I've seen come up, a case where Crown is putting the convoy itself on trial and applying that to the person who happens to be the defendant.
00:09:21.620 And it, it really happens irrespective of the individual defendant's conduct.
00:09:25.620 And it sounds like that was really what was happening here as well.
00:09:27.620 Well, to a certain degree, that is a, an effective and an appropriate strategy of the crown.
00:09:32.620 And to a certain degree, that was our strategy to combat it.
00:09:36.620 I mean, the crown would need, if the crown wants to go that route, they have to establish that the convoy itself constituted a mischief.
00:09:44.620 And also that the person on trial participated in some way that they just weren't simply observing it happen in front of them, but they were in some way acting either as a principal actor in that convoy or as a participant or, or as a aider or a better of, of the convoy as a party to, to that.
00:10:06.620 And so we actually liked framing it like that, because if we could establish either of those two had, had, had failed to be done, that would have resulted in an acquittal.
00:10:17.620 And so our primary line of focus is to argue, look, the crown is not established beyond a reasonable doubt, certainly on the evidence in this trial, that there was a mischief.
00:10:27.620 And to whatever extent that there was, the convoy was there to, to deliver a message.
00:10:35.620 And so under subsection seven of the mischief provision, you can't find someone guilty of that.
00:10:41.620 And then even if that was established, they had to establish that Jason participated.
00:10:46.620 And I think the judge was able to make that leap in the, in the sense that they found him to be a, a fairly involved participant in the convoy.
00:10:54.620 So let me just ask you moving forward here, not just in, in this case, but in general, now that a judge has found that someone who was involved in the convoy had committed mischief.
00:11:06.620 That's the finding as it stands right now.
00:11:08.620 Can that seep into other cases when crown is making similar arguments?
00:11:14.620 For example, the Tamera Leach and Chris Barber trial, which is already underway.
00:11:17.620 Can they use this ruling to kind of help make that case against them that, Oh, a judge has already found the convoy was a mischief.
00:11:23.620 In theory, it shouldn't.
00:11:25.620 I mean, and the, the main reason why is that, um, every criminal trial is a trial on its own evidence, other than when a court takes judicial notice.
00:11:34.620 Like, like just to, just to reiterate that point, you know, a court can take judicial notice that water freezes at, at zero degrees without having to call a scientist into court to testify in every case where that's, where that's a situation.
00:11:47.620 There is a place for that process.
00:11:49.620 You're saying.
00:11:50.620 Pardon me.
00:11:51.620 There's a place for that process of taking judicial notice. 0.96
00:11:53.620 Right.
00:11:54.620 I'm saying there are ways in which judicial notice could be taken.
00:11:57.620 I mean, judicial notice can be taken of the fact that, that Wellington is located north of the Queensway.
00:12:04.620 And that, and that Metcalf street runs north south.
00:12:08.620 I mean, these are things where everybody does in fact know this.
00:12:11.620 There's no controversy, any, any resources like maps or anything like that would, would confirm that.
00:12:17.620 And so where there's no dispute courts can find that, but in a, to answer your question on the extent of whether or not something is a mischief, the court needs to adjudicate it on the record.
00:12:29.620 That's before it on the evidence that's before it.
00:12:31.620 And, and so I think that it would be inappropriate for a court to, um, to find that because one court found it to be a mischief, another court could do that as well.
00:12:43.620 All right. Well, uh, sorry about the loss, but I know you're looking at your options and let's hope that, uh, we have some sanity prevailing here.
00:12:50.620 David Anberg, criminal lawyer in Ottawa and not a Simpsons character as for quite a while, his, uh, Twitter, uh, profile photo made it seem.
00:12:57.620 David, good to talk to you.
00:12:58.620 Thanks.
00:12:59.620 Thanks for having me.
00:13:00.620 And also thanks again for your testimony in the, in the trial.
00:13:04.620 It was, it was quite well received.
00:13:06.620 Well, always happy to talk about things I saw and observed there.
00:13:09.620 So appreciate that very much, David.
00:13:10.620 Thanks for listening to the Andrew Lawton show.
00:13:12.620 Support the program by donating to true north at www.tnc.news.