The Federal Court of Canada just ruled the invocation of the Emergencies Act ultra vires. In other words, it was an abuse of power, discriminatory, unconstitutional, beyond the legal power or authority, unlawful, illegal, etc, etc, etc!!!!
This is big! What… pic.twitter.com/P9qp3qBiUS
— Eva Chipiuk, BSc, LLB, LLM (@echipiuk) January 23, 2024
The Federal Court of Canada has just ruled that the use of the Emergencies Act was illegal.
In no way shape or form is this an admittance that I was wrong.
In reality, Stephen Harper was the one who invoked the Emergency Act on Canadians. pic.twitter.com/FZCC0s8Wcg
— Jagmeet Singh's Hypocrisy (@singh_hypocrisy) January 23, 2024
Via CP24 OTTAWA – A judge says it was unreasonable for the Liberal government to use the Emergencies Act to quell “Freedom Convoy” protests in the national capital and at key border points two years ago.
In a decision released today, Federal Court Justice Richard Mosley says invocation of the act led to the infringement of constitutional rights.
The Canadian Civil Liberties Association and several other groups and individuals had argued in court that Ottawa ushered in the emergency measures without sound statutory grounds.
The government contended the steps taken to deal with the pan-Canadian turmoil were targeted, proportional, time-limited and compliant with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
The Public Order Emergency Commission, which carries out a mandatory review after invocation of the Emergencies Act, found the government met the very high legal standard for using the law.
Mosley says he revisited the events with the benefit of hindsight and a more extensive record of the facts and the law than the government had when it invoked the act.
In a landmark decision, the Federal Court ruled that Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s utilization of the Emergency Act was deemed unreasonable and a violation of Canadian Charter Rights. The court’s judgment underscores the delicate balance between governmental authority and individual liberties in times of crisis.
The ruling, a significant legal setback for the Trudeau administration, criticizes the implementation of emergency measures as disproportionate and inconsistent with the principles enshrined in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The court’s decision highlights the importance of upholding civil liberties, even in the face of perceived national emergencies, emphasizing that executive powers must be exercised judiciously.
This verdict carries broader implications for the country’s legal landscape and political discourse, prompting a reevaluation of the scope and limitations of emergency powers. It reaffirms the judiciary’s role as a check on executive actions, emphasizing the necessity of adherence to constitutional principles, particularly in moments of heightened state intervention. The ruling sets a precedent, guiding future considerations of emergency measures, and reaffirms the enduring commitment of the Canadian legal system to protect the rights and freedoms of its citizens.