1/16/2026|Updated: 1/17/2026
Commentary
The Federal Court of Appeal on Jan. 16 upheld the ruling that the Trudeau government’s invocation of the Emergencies Act in 2022 was unreasonable and unconstitutional. It is more than just a legal judgment—it is an unequivocal vindication of Canada’s democratic foundations.
To put it mildly, this decision builds trust in the rule of law.
When I visited the Freedom Convoy protest on those bitterly cold January-February days in 2022, I was struck with the disconnect between what I saw on the ground and the federal government’s narrative, echoed in many of the media, subsidized as they are by the public purse. On Feb. 13, I stood in front of the flatbed trailer that served as the stage for various special guests among whom was our senior statesmen, the Hon. Brian Peckford, a former premier of Newfoundland and Labrador, who gave an impassioned speech that I will never forget.
Peckford told the crowd that the courts will be influenced by the truckers, “so at the end of the day, they [the courts] will restore our Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The use of peaceful civil disobedience “is a very, very important concept,” he said. It has a role in influencing “our body politic and must influence our laws.”
Peckford called upon the individual and the collective to influence “the government and the judiciary of this country to re-establish the Charter of Rights and Freedoms that we intended it to be in 1982.”
“Don’t forget that the Constitution is not a federal law, the Constitution is not a provincial law,” he said. “The Constitution is not a little puny municipal bylaw. The Constitution is the supreme law of Canada. Nothing comes above the Constitution, and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is a part of that Constitution. And your individual rights and freedoms are in that Charter of Rights and Freedoms.”
I took the time to reacquaint myself with the video I took of Peckford’s speech in light of the Jan. 16 Federal Court of Appeal’s decision. Simply put, Peckford was prescient.
On that cold February day, we had no idea that within the halls of government surrounding us, the prime minister and his inner circle were laying the plans for the invocation of the Emergencies Act to be announced the very next day—a breach of our rights that is worthy of the Federal Court of Appeal’s derision.
As I detail in my book, “210° Celsius: 16 Ways the Truckers Ignited Canada for the Long Haul,” the invocation of the Emergencies Act was an unprecedented government overreach, executed with a disturbing disregard for legal limits and fundamental freedoms. Now, the Federal Court of Appeal agrees with what we saw on the ground.
My book extensively documents how the government’s response to the Freedom Convoy was marked by what I describe as “startling instances of overreach.” The Court of Appeal’s careful scrutiny and ultimate dismissal of the government’s arguments underscore a critical truth: The extraordinary powers of the state are not meant for political convenience, but for genuine, last-resort crises, strictly delineated by law.
The court rejected the government’s attempt to stretch the definition of “threats to the security of Canada”—a term precisely defined by the CSIS Act—to include mere economic disruptions and speculative risks. As I argue in my book, such an attempt was part of a broader pattern where those in power “redefine words to enable their continued hold on power.” The court rightly confirmed that purely economic consequences, however inconvenient, do not equate to “serious violence against persons or property” as legally required. In “210° Celsius,” I explicitly state: “What happened in Ottawa during the Freedom Convoy 2022 was not terrorism. It was a peaceful protest.” The government’s attempt to paint it otherwise was a “misuse of language,” trying to justify extraordinary measures where none were legally warranted.
As the court said on Jan. 16, “It would stretch beyond rationality the meaning of the words ’serious violence,’ when applied to property, if they were to encompass purely economic consequences or speculative disruption of essential goods and services.” (Emphasis added.)
Furthermore, the court agreed that no “national emergency” existed that genuinely exceeded provincial capacity and authority. As I chronicled, provinces like Alberta and Manitoba were managing protests with existing tools, and even in Ottawa, the issue was more about policing resources and political will than a lack of legal instruments.
My book emphasizes that the Emergencies Act should be a “tool of last resort,” not a substitute for effective governance or a way to bypass provincial autonomy. The court’s finding that there was “a lack of evidence that the situation, critical as it was, could not be dealt with effectively with the existing laws of Canada” echoes my observations. In my view, “it was the state—not the people—that was violent. The state refused to sit down and have a conversation.” This decision reaffirms that the act cannot be used simply because it might be “convenient,” as the Federal Court stated.
Perhaps the most crucial aspect of the ruling is the affirmation that the Emergency Measures Regulations and the Economic Order violated Charter rights. The court found that the regulations were “overbroad,” unlawfully restricting freedom of expression by criminalizing even peaceful protesters. This directly aligns with my concerns in “210° Celsius” about the government’s “harsh restrictions on key civil liberties such as speech, assembly.”
The freezing of bank accounts under the Economic Order, deemed an unreasonable search and seizure, was particularly egregious. In my book, I recount how the freezing of bank accounts of convoy donors sent a “bitterly cold chill” through many Canadians. This governmental action, which I describe as “a vindictive Canadian government” attacking “private property,” was seen by many, myself included, as a severe violation of the donors’ rights. The court’s recognition that these measures lacked sufficient safeguards and were not minimally impairing is a victory for every Canadian’s privacy and financial autonomy.
My faith in the objective role of the courts has been restored with this Federal Court of Appeal’s decision. I have been burdened by the fact that what we witnessed in February 2022 was a government, supported by its inner panel of “experts,” who downplayed the importance of individual rights as stated in the Charter to pursue a politically convenient goal.
On that point, the public inquiry that set out to determine whether the government was within its rights to invoke the Emergencies Act, and ultimately found in the government’s favour, failed Canadians.
No matter the situation, governments—being the politicians, bureaucrats, and police enforcement—must strictly adhere to the rule of law and respect fundamental freedoms. As the court stated: “Courts must therefore ensure that Cabinet does not overextend the scope of its authority beyond what was intended.” I am still calling for the release to the public of the legal brief that was provided to the government as a legal rationale for invoking the Emergencies Act to begin with. The rule of law, not political expediency, is required to protect our rights.
This ruling is not just about the past—it’s a critical precedent for the future, ensuring that the exceptional powers of the state will not be wielded arbitrarily.
As I’ve argued, “the Canadian truckers showed Canada and the world that the lessons learned from the civil rights protests of years past remain important for us today.” This decision is a breath of fresh air that proves our judiciary remains a crucial bulwark against wayward government actions.
Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.
