The heavily-armed former Canadian Forces reservist turned RW domestic terrorist who crashed a set of gates less than 400 meters from the residence of the Prime Minister in July 2020 has failed in a bid to have the length of his prison sentence reviewed.

In a surprise to no one, the Ontario Court of Appeal, in a decision released Thursday, left untouched the six-year jail term imposed on March 10, 2021, by Justice Robert Wadden of the Ontario Court of Justice.

Dubbed “the friendly sausage maker” by the MSM upon his arrest, Corey Hurren, then 46, rammed his truck through the front gate of Rideau Hall in Ottawa, seeking to either unload his weaponry or discuss his feelings in a heart-to-heart, it-is-what-it-is man chat with PM Trudeau on the Rideau Cottage terrace.

Setting aside the narrow appeal matter before the Court, the Reasons for the Decision of Justices Janet M. Simmons, Gary T. Trotter, and Jill M. Copeland articulate a blistering rebuke of Convoy ideology.

The Court states that Hurren committed a politically motivated armed assault to intimidate the Trudeau Liberals, hoping to bring attention to his radical RW political views.

Hurren pleaded guilty to seven firearms offenses and one count of mischief. He was sentenced to six years imprisonment, less than one year of credit for pre-sentence custody. The details are fresh.

(Hurren was granted day parole in November 2022, unaccompanied by the usual braying from the CPC and the media).

July 2, 2020, having crashed his pickup through gates to access the property serving as the residences of the Governor General and the Prime Minister, Hurren set out on foot with three loaded firearms – two twelve-gauge shotguns and a semi-automatic rifle – and a magazine cartridge containing 30 rounds of ammunition.

Hurren was a 4-minute walk from the PM’s Rideau Cottage residence when he rammed his pickup through the Rideau Hall gates.

Left behind in his truck were two loaded handguns – one a prohibited break-open pistol, the other a restricted revolver – more ammunition and a note. The semi-automatic rifle was a prohibited weapon; the magazine cartridge was a prohibited device. He also had a knife.

The Court, verbatim:

“In the note, among other things, the appellant wrote that he was afraid for the future of Canada, which he perceived as now being under a communist dictatorship. Further, he said that with the firearms ban and more rights being taken away, he could no longer sit back and watch this happen. He hoped this was a wakeup call and a turning point.”

After being intercepted on the grounds by security, Hurren hid behind a tree, initially refusing to lay down his guns, at which point a standoff ensued.

“Among other things, the appellant told the officers he was there to arrest the Prime Minister. He wanted to make a statement to the Prime Minister by showing up during one of his daily media briefings to express his anger about the recent firearms amendments and COVID-19 restrictions.”

Following 90 minutes of negotiations, the appellant dropped his weapons and surrendered to the police.

To his credit, he did not point his firearms at the officers during the standoff, the Court said.

“While acknowledging that mitigating factors were present, the sentencing judge concluded that these offenses had to be denounced in the strongest terms. He described the degree to which the appellant had armed himself as shocking.

“The appellant’s actions in carrying his weapons onto government property created a situation of grave danger.”

There was no indication that the appellant recognized the wrongfulness of using armed force to express his political dissent, the Court stressed.

“In arriving at a sentence of six years imprisonment, the sentencing judge considered several aggravating severe factors. Those factors included the appellant’s deliberate conduct in heavily arming himself with loaded weapons, including prohibited and restricted weapons, taking those weapons to government property to engage in an armed confrontation with the Prime Minister over government policies, and ultimately engaging in a 90‑minute standoff with the police.

“As described by the sentencing judge, this conduct amounted to armed aggression against the government.

“Further, we are not persuaded that the sentencing judge made any error in the weight he afforded to the appellant’s depression or suicidal ideation. However, as we have said, in his analysis, the sentencing judge noted that there was no indication in the psychiatric evidence that the appellant had any insight into his depression or would be working to cure it. In the sentencing judge’s view, this, and the appellant’s actions while depressed, contributed to the appellant’s future risk.

“The sentencing judge went on to find that it was the appellant’s political views that spurred the appellant on to take the actions that he did in arming himself and driving to Ottawa to attack Rideau Hall.

“Finally, as we have said, we consider that the six-year sentence imposed was entirely fit in this case’s circumstances. As the sentencing judge recognized, despite the mitigating factors present, the appellant’s crimes cried out for denunciation in the strongest terms and a sentence that would deter both the appellant and others from engaging in similar conduct.”

Continuing:

“The sentencing judge made no error in describing the appellant’s conduct as an ‘armed aggression against the government.’ The appellant’s conduct not only posed a mortal danger to both himself and others, but it also threatened Canadian values. Whatever one’s political views, it is not acceptable in Canada to arm oneself with any type of w express those views or dissatisfaction with the government. ‘An exemplary sentence was required.”

All rise. Court adjourned.