It is not until you read the transcript of Justice Timothy Lipson’s oral decision on August 2, 2024, that you get to understand the extent to which Benjamin Spicer’s Charter rights were so violated. His unlawful arrest, during those dark days of February 2022 when the Prime Minister unlawfully invoked the Emergencies Act, stands as yet another statistic in government overreach. Lipson’s decision in favor of Spicer gives us a moment of reflection on the moral and financial costs our government incurred in its handling of the Freedom Convoy protests. I suggest it epitomizes the political nature of the government crackdown of the protest. The crackdown process became the punishment.
On February 19, 2022, Ben was standing peacefully among others when he was struck by police and knocked to the ground. Justice Lipson describes how two Sudbury constables, Mills and Genoe were part of the “hand-off squad” that took protesters arrested by the frontline police to be processed. Mills did not see Spicer commit a crime. He saw only Spicer on the ground surrounded by police who were “laying strikes on him”. “Mills saw at lease two strikes administered to Spicer’s midsection.” “[A]t least two strikes.”
The frontline police did not tell Mills what Spicer did to deserve the harsh treatment. In their search of his backpack, they found a knife and bear spray. He was charged with mischief, obstruction of justice, and weapons offenses. Lipson ruled, “there is no evidence that Mr. Spicer did anything in violation of any law that warranted him being detained on the ground and being subjected to physical force.”
The crown wanted to enter in evidence the weapons and the conversation that was surreptitiously recorded in the police van of Spicer talking with a fellow protester. Lipson rendered the evidence inadmissible due to the violations of Spicer’s Charter rights. First, the arrest violated Spicer’s s.9 Charter right to be free from arbitrary detention which also made the search of his backpack unlawful.
Second, the recording constituted a serious breach of Spicer’s s. 8 right to privacy. Spicer, riding in the police van, had no idea he was being recorded as he exchanged personal information between his fellow protester “as well as opinions concerning the protest and the police actions at the protest.” Third, nor was Spicer given his s.10 (b) right to contact his legal counsel.
While Justice Lipson was sympathetic to the overtaxed police in clearing Ottawa’s streets it did not excuse their violation of protesters’ basic Charter rights. As he described, “the interference with the physical integrity of Mr. Spicer was significant and impact and intrusion on his Charter-protected rights were serious.” “Canadian society supports the upholding of individual Charter rights,” Lipson said, “as well the long-term interests of the repute of the administration of justice.
Lawyer Daniel Freiheit aptly described many of the charges against protestors like Spicer as “mere puffery.” This characterization not only underscores the inflated rhetoric used to justify aggressive policing but also reveals a troubling pattern where the process itself becomes a form of punishment.
As we move on in time from the Freedom Convoy the ongoing litigation that resulted from the unlawful government actions reminds us of the systemic approach to stifle dissent of the government narrative. Taxpayer money spent on police operations intended to quash peaceful protests, legal fees for prosecuting unjust charges; the pressure on judicial resources and political maneuvering against protesters was seen as a small price to pay by the government. This politically motivated harassment rather than ensuring public safety or upholding justice led to many broken people and we are yet to see what the inevitable compensation for wrongful arrests that taxpayers may have to pay in the future. The government’s heavy-handed approach, prioritizing control over civil rights has proven costly to us all.
The mainstream media’s narrative surrounding the Freedom Convoy largely supported the government’s crackdown, often at the expense of accuracy and fairness. This one-sided coverage risks marginalizing the voices of those protesting what they viewed as “quasi-tyrannical policies.” The biases inherent in media reporting create a skewed public perception that further isolates individuals like Spicer—who faced financial ruin and social ostracization simply for voicing their dissent. This portrayal of protesters as a “fringed minority” with “unacceptable views” serves to undermine the legitimacy of their concerns and further discourages peaceful dissent.
As demonstrated by Justice Lipson’s ruling, the judiciary has a critical role in protecting the rights of all Canadians, particularly when the government oversteps its bounds. His decision underlines the importance of constitutional rights enshrined in the Canadian Charter and serves as a warning against governmental misuses of authority. We must not forget that every individual is presumed innocent until proven guilty, and this fundamental principle was trampled in the rush to silence dissenting voices during the Freedom Convoy.
Spicer’s lawyer Monick Grenier stated, “I am very satisfied that the judge recognized serious breaches of Mr. Spicer’s section 8, 9, and 10(b) Charter rights, and excluded the evidence after conducting an analysis, effectively gutting the Crown’s case.” Spicer is thankful to the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedom for their support and “with particular thanks to all those who donated.”
While Spicer was exonerated his case is an opportunity for Canada to evaluate its approach to civil liberties and government accountability. The events of the Freedom Convoy highlight a dangerous trend in Canadian politics where the government prioritizes its own narrative over the fundamental rights of its citizens. How much longer will we allow our government to manipulate the narrative, waste taxpayer money, and suppress dissent? The events of the Freedom Convoy serve as a potent reminder that robust debate and the protection of civil liberties are essential for a healthy democracy. Canadians must demand a government that prioritizes the rights of its citizens over political expediency and embrace a more balanced and nuanced approach to public discourse.
Ben Spicer serves as a stark reminder of the costs of ignoring these fundamental principles—and as a call to action for all Canadians to demand better.
