Government Lawyers Make Case to Overturn Ruling Against Emergencies Act
By Matthew Horwood 2/4/2025
Government lawyers argued in court that two “fundamental errors” were made when a judge determined the invocation of the Emergencies Act in response to the 2022 Freedom Convoy protest was unjustified.
The Federal Court of Appeal in Toronto began a two-day hearing on Feb. 4 on the Liberal government’s appeal of a 2024 decision by Justice Richard Mosley.
Lawyer Michael Feder, who represented the government, argued that the justice erred by using his “own findings of fact and law as if he were the first instance decision maker,” while giving less weight to the Governor in Council’s (GIC) justifications for invoking the Emergencies Act in response to the protest. Civil liberties organizations involved in the case, meanwhile, argued that Justice Mosley was right in finding that the situation didn’t warrant the use of the act.
The Freedom Convoy protest was started in response to a mandate requiring COVID-19 vaccination for truck drivers crossing the Canada–U.S. border, as well as other public health measures and restrictions. The protest took the form of encampments of vehicles gathering in Ottawa, as well as protests in other cities and Canada-U.S. border crossings.
The Liberal government invoked the Emergencies Act on Feb. 14, 2022, which gave law enforcement expanded powers to arrest demonstrators, allowed for the freezing of the bank accounts of some protesters, and required towing companies to remove protesters’ vehicles from Ottawa’s downtown core.
The Public Order Emergency Commission, created to determine whether the Liberal government was justified in invoking the Emergencies Act, heard from dozens of witnesses from the government, law enforcement, the city of Ottawa, and the protest over the course of several months. Commissioner Paul Rouleau, an Ontario Court of Appeal justice, determined on Feb. 17, 2023, that cabinet had met the “very high” threshold to invoke the act.
Rouleau said the government had “reasonable grounds to believe that there existed a national emergency arising from threats to the security of Canada that necessitated the taking of special temporary measures.” The legislation surrounding the Emergencies Act states it can be invoked if there is a threat to the security of Canada so serious that it constitutes a national emergency.
However, on Jan. 23, 2024, Justice Mosley ruled that Ottawa’s invocation of the Emergencies Act was not reasonable, and that it infringed on Canadians’ Charter rights. He said the Act’s invocation interfered with Charter Sections 2(b), which deals with freedom of thought, belief, opinion, and expression, and Section 8, which deals with the right to be secured from unreasonable seizure, and that the freezing of bank accounts was “not minimally impairing.”
The same day as Mosley’s ruling, then-Deputy Prime Minister Chrystia Freeland said the federal government would be appealing the decision, adding that the invocation of the Emergencies Act was “a hard decision to take“ but also ”the necessary thing to do.”
Civil liberties organizations that were involved in the court case against the government’s use of the act had argued that the government did not meet the legal threshold to invoke the legislation in response to the protest.
Feds Justified in Decision, Lawyers Argue
Government lawyer Feder told a panel of three judges that Justice Mosley had not applied the methodology for reasonableness review, which would have begun with examining the government’s reasons for declaring the public order emergency. He said that when looking at the situation, the judge used his own findings as “a yardstick by which to measure” the decisions of the government.
Feder said the government had invoked the Emergencies Act in response to a “complicated, volatile, uncertain, and unpredictable situation” that it believed threatened the safety of Canadians and the country’s economy. “It was simply unfair to fault the GIC’s decision-making based on 20/20 hindsight—20/20 hindsight obtained in the peaceful de-escalation that occurred in light of the emergency measures now being impugned,” he said.
According to Feder, the Emergencies Act allows the government to invoke the Act at its discretion, as long as it has “compelling and credible information to ground the belief” that it is warranted. Feder said the cache of weapons and ammunition found in Coutts, Alta., around the time of the protest would give the government reasonable grounds.
John Provart, another government lawyer, said the invocation of the Act did not put any unjustifiable limits on Sections 2(b) or 8 of the Charter. He said the protests were a form of “coercion akin to violent expression,” and therefore were not protected under the Constitution.
Provart also said the economic measures against protesters’ bank accounts did not constitute an unreasonable search and seizure, as Section 8 of the Charter protects privacy and not property, and the measures applied to provisions outside of constitutional protection.
CCF Argues Charter Rights Violated
Canadian Constitutional Foundation (CCF) lawyer Sujit Choudhry said the federal government’s explanation for the invocation of the Emergencies Act did not address the CSIS Act requirement, which was not met in this case, he said. The Emergencies Act can be invoked if there is a threat to the security of Canada so serious that it constitutes a national emergency, he noted.
During the Public Order Emergency Commission, then-CSIS Director David Vigneault had testified that the service did not believe the Freedom Convoy constituted a threat to national security as per the definition in the CSIS Act. Choudhry pointed out that CSIS did not change its assessment after the weapons cache was found at Coutts, and the Integrated Terrorism Assessment Centre had kept its terrorist assessment threat at “medium” throughout the protest.
Choudhry also cited Justice Mosley’s ruling that there could have been a surge of police resources to deal with the protest. “Taken to its absurd conclusion, you could use the [Emergencies Act] anytime by just having understaffed policing resources,” he said.
Fellow CCF lawyer Janani Shanmuganathan said the regulations under the Emergencies Act went too far because they effectively criminalized protesters who had no connection to the border blockades. “The fact that the scope of the regulations goes beyond those who were blockading is why we say that the regulations are an obvious breach of Section 2(b) [of the Charter],” she said.
Trudeau’s Emergencies Act invocation was illegal and unconstitutional – but his government is still fighting against civil liberties
The following article was written by the CCF’s Litigation Director Christine Van Geyn in anticipation for the Federal Court of Appeal case being heard today. This article is free for republication by all media.
The Federal Court of Appeal is hearing a once-in-a-generation civil liberties case February 4th and 5th – the appeal in the legal challenge to the Emergencies Act. This is the appeal of a landmark decision of the federal court from January, 2024. In that lower court decision, Justice Mosley sided with the legal charity, the Canadian Constitution Foundation, who had challenged Trudeau’s invocation of that extraordinary legislation in response to the 2022 Freedom Convoy.
Justice Mosley found that there was no national emergency and no threat to the security of Canada, which are legal requirements built into the Act to prevent it from being abused. He also found that the orders freezing bank accounts violated the constitutional right to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures, and that the restrictions on protests violated the right to freedom of expression.
The decision was a blow to the Trudeau government, which announced their intention to appeal within minutes of the release of the nearly 200-page decision. The Trudeau government had spent over $2.2 million fighting the CCF in that case, only to lose on almost every measure. For the appeal, the government has hired new private sector lawyers whose high hourly rates will be paid with taxpayer money.
This appeal will be heard by a three-judge panel in Toronto. The focus of the CCF’s argument to dismiss the appeal is the fact that the definition of “threats to the security of Canada”, which the Emergencies Act makes clear means the same thing that it means under the CSIS Act, was not met. CSIS Director David Vigneault had informed the government that the definition was not met, and Cabinet failed to wait for an alternative assessment of the facts before invoking the Act. Another focus of the appeal is the level of deference owed to Cabinet in their decision to invoke the Act. The government is claiming that Cabinet essentially has unfettered discretion. This goes against the actual text of the Emergencies Act as well as the history and context of the legislation, which was enacted to ensure there were proper guardrails on the legislation so it could not be abused like its predecessor, the War Measures Act.
The Trudeau government’s decision to invoke this law, and their argument on appeal, shows wilful historic blindness. While Justin Trudeau is no constitutional scholar, the decision to invoke the Emergencies Act shows an unsettling ignorance of not just Canadian history but his own family history. The Emergencies Act was created to replace the War Measures Act, a piece of legislation that was abused by Justin Trudeau’s own father, Pierre Elliott Trudeau, when he was Prime Minister.
Trudeau Senior had used the War Measures Act to suspend basic civil rights and liberties in the wake of the FLQ crisis. In contrast to the Freedom Convoy, which was a group of stubborn, noisy, but non-violent protesters on the steps of Parliament and at some border towns, the FLQ crisis in 1970 involved bombings, kidnapping and murder. In response, Trudeau Sr. invoked the War Measures Act, allowing for police searches and arrests without warrants, and prolonged detentions without charges and without the right to see a lawyer. A few hours after the War Measures Act came into effect, almost 500 Quebecers were arrested and many more were searched without warrants. In the end, even in the context of actual violence the use of the War Measures Act was an overreaction. The Duchaine Report concluded there were only 35 active members of the FLQ when the Quebec government had suggested the existence of thousands.
When the Emergencies Act was introduced to replace the discredited War Measures Act, it was designed intentionally to prevent abuse. To be used for public order emergencies, the threshold for use is especially high. It requires a “threat to the security of Canada”, which is defined to have the same meaning as the CSIS Act, which had been debated and passed by Parliament. This definition had been thoroughly vetted. So when CSIS director Vigneault found that there was no threat to the security of Canada, the federal government needed to pay attention. CSIS said no threat existed, and even confirmed this assessment after the cache of weapons was found at Coutts – which was the only real “whiff of danger” during the entire Freedom Convoy. The Coutts cache was discovered through regular policing and arrests were made, and the CSIS threat assessment did not change. If Trudeau and his Cabinet reached a different conclusion from CSIS, they needed to explain why. Instead they have hidden behind cabinet confidentiality, claimed they cannot disclose why the reached any different conclusion from CSIS, and demanded the public accept the use of this extraordinary legislation to freeze the bank accounts of Canadian protesters for unknown mysterious reasons.
Shared from https://theccf.ca/government-is-still-fighting-against-civil-liberties/
HISTORY
Emergencies Act Was Invoked Without Legal Justification
Court Ruling: Federal Government acted illegally in responding to 2022 Freedom Convoy
OTTAWA, ON: The Justice Centre is pleased to announce that the legal and constitutional challenge against the first-ever invocation of the Emergencies Act, filed as Jost et al. v. Canada, has been decided in favour of the citizens who participated in the peaceful 2022 Freedom Convoy in Ottawa. The Justice Centre provided lawyers for these Canadians, who launched a court action within ten days of the Emergencies Act being invoked, and who sought a court declaration that the Emergencies Act was invoked without legal justification.
The constitutional challenge to the invocation of the Emergencies Act was filed on behalf of four Canadians who had participated in the peaceful Freedom Convoy protest in Ottawa in January and February 2022. They are Jeremiah Jost, a 28-year-old contractor and volunteer firefighter from Alberta; Edward Cornell, a 64-year-old retired military veteran from New Brunswick; Rev. Harold Ristau from Ontario, a former Canadian Armed Forces chaplain and retired officer with Canadian Special Operations Forces Command; and Vincent Gircys, a retired, decorated member of the Ontario Provincial Police.
The Emergencies Act was invoked on February 14, 2022, by the Federal Cabinet to shut down the Freedom Convoy protest. Each of the plaintiffs suffered significant harm during the militaristic police crackdown that began on February 18, 2022. Two of the applicants represented by the Justice Centre had their bank accounts frozen and seized, without judicial authorization or a review process, under laws that normally apply only to terrorists and enemy nations.
Edward Cornell said his experience having his bank accounts seized was traumatic. “I broke no law, yet the government seized my accounts and froze my hard-earned money. I am not a criminal. I am not a terrorist. I am a retired Canadian military veteran who honourably served his country… I feel betrayed by my own government,” he added.
The Justice Centre provided lawyers for the peaceful protest in 2022, and since that time has provided lawyers to defend Chris Barber, Tamara Lich and other Canadians facing unjust criminal charges.
Justice Centre President John Carpay stated, “This is a great victory for democracy, for Charter rights and freedoms, and for the rule of law.”
POSTED ON: JANUARY 23, 2024
For media inquiries, please contact media@jccf.ca.
shared from https://www.jccf.ca/court-ruling-federal-government-acted-illegally-in-responding-to-2022-freedom-convoy/
Scroll below the videos for Trudeau’s Justice Minister David Lametti Resigns Following Emergencies Act Court Ruling.
Court Ruling: Emergencies Act
Trudeau’s Justice Minister David Lametti Resigns Following Emergencies Act Court Ruling
Former Liberal Justice Minister jumps ship after federal court judge rules his party violated the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. During the Emergencies Act inquiry, text messages revealed Lametti discussing the use of military tanks to quell the Freedom Convoy protest.
David Lametti, the former Justice Minister and Attorney General of Canada, is resigning from his position, effective February 1st.
His term as Attorney General was notably marked by the Freedom Convoy protests in February 2022 and the subsequent response from the Trudeau Government.
Lametti’s resignation comes two days after a federal court judge ruled the Liberals violated the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms by invoking the Emergencies Act against protesters in Ottawa during the Freedom Convoy.
BREAKING: David Lametti’s resignation letter. pic.twitter.com/MvMsUDbMg7— Noé Chartier (@NChartierET) January 25, 2024
Lametti released a resignation letter in which he said he’s leaving his role to join a law firm of Fasken Martineau DuMoulin. Lametti said he’s “proud of the role” he played during the Freedom Convoy protest, but made no mention of the federal court’s ruling.
Lametti’s political journey saw him serving as parliamentary secretary to the ministers of international trade and innovation, science and economic development, before ascending to the role of Minister of Justice and Attorney General in 2019.
His exit is not an isolated event. It follows the departure of Liberal MP Carolyn Bennett, who quit on the spot in December.
It also comes one day after Liberal MP Ken McDonald openly challenged Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s leadership and called for a party-wide vote to reassess their confidence in him. However on Thursday, McDonald walked back his statements.
Lametti joked about using tanks to clear protesters
During the Public Order Emergency Commission (POEC) inquiry, text messages revealed Lametti discussing the use of military tanks to quell the Freedom Convoy protest.
He later described his comments as “banter” during his testimony.
Federal court rules Trudeau violated Charter rights with Emergencies Act against Truckers
The Federal Court’s landmark ruling from Tuesday was a historical rebuke of the government’s handling of the Freedom Convoy protesters. The court found that the use of the Emergencies Act, a measure reserved for situations of severe national crisis, was disproportionate and infringed upon freedom of thought, opinion, and expression rights of the protesters, as per the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
The Applicants, consisting of the Canadian Constitution Foundation, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, and four individuals who attended the 2022 Freedom Convoy protest in Ottawa, argued there was insufficient evidence that the lives, health or safety of Canadians were seriously endangered beyond the capacity that provincial authorities had.
The respondents in the ruling consisted of the Governor in Council Mary Simon and then-Public Safety Minister Marco Mendicino, who were represented by the Attorney General of Canada, Arif Virani.
Virani was made Attorney General of Canada after Trudeau booted Lametti from the role in August 2023.
Lametti deletes social media
Social media users became suspicious earlier this week when it became clear Lametti had deleted his X account. While some linked it to the federal court’s ruling, others suggested he deleted it late last year.
shared from https://thecountersignal.com/trudeaus-justice-minister-resigns-following-federal-court-ruling/
Trudeau’s AG during unconstitutional emergency act crackdown on freedom protesters RESIGNS from parliament
Lametti played a key role in the decision to invoke the Emergencies Act against the trucker protest, pushing to do so early in the confrontation.
Former Justice Minister and Attorney General of Canada David Lametti announced his resignation as a Liberal Member of Parliament Thursday.
The Montreal MP resigned just three days after Federal Court Justice Richard Mosley ruled Tuesday that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau was unjustified in invoking the Emergencies Act against the Freedom Convoy protest and that it was “unreasonable” to do so.
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau moved Lametti to the back bench in a summer cabinet shuffle that saw the high-profile minister replaced by current Justice Minister Arif Virani.
Lametti played a key role in the decision to invoke the Emergencies Act against the trucker protest, pushing to do so early in the confrontation.
Lemetti backed Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland’s decision to freeze the bank accounts of protesters and even supporters who donated money to the cause. He even compared the Freedom Convoy to a terrorist organization and said it was his job to stop Canadians from advocating “pro-Trump” politics.
At the height of the Freedom Convoy protest, Lametti was texting then-Public Safety Minister Marco Mendincino about how many Canadian Army tanks it would require to suppress the demonstrators.
In an interview airing Saturday on CBC, Lametti continued to defend using the Emergencies Act and said he rejected the federal court ruling.
“I disagree with the decision. I disagree with [Justice Richard Mosley’s] analysis and I disagree with his framing of the issue and his treatment of the facts,” Lametti told host Catherine Cullen.
“I’m pretty confident this decision will be overturned on appeal.”
Lametti’s resignation will take effect at the end of January. He made the announcement at a Liberal caucus retreat in Ottawa.
In a statement posted on X, Lametti said he is leaving politics with “mixed emotions” but that it was time for a change.
Lametti entered the House of Commons in 2015 when Trudeau was first elected prime minister. He was appointed as justice minister and attorney general in 2019.
“It is with some sadness that I am leaving a dream job. Since the changes made to cabinet in the summer of 2023, I have continued to do my best to fulfill my duties as a member of Parliament,” he said.
“This period has been challenging personally, as one might imagine, and I sincerely believe that after eight intense years, constituents of LaSalle-Emard-Verdun—and I am one of them—would benefit from a change of voice and style.”
Trial Coverage: Rebel News challenges David Lametti over potential Emergencies Act coverup
Ezra Levant provides updates from court as Rebel News’ challenge into former justice minister David Lametti’s possible deleting of records relating to the Emergencies Act invocation continues.
- By Rebel News
- February 02, 2024
- News Analysis
Rebel News launched a lawsuit against David Lametti, the former justice minister in Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s government who was responsible for invoking the Emergencies Act in response to the Freedom Convoy protest.
That protest, which occurred in early 2022, was opposed to Canada’s vaccine mandates and public health restrictions. A Federal Court justice recently found the Trudeau Liberals violated Canadians’ rights by invoking the country’s strongest national security law against the protest.
Following that decision, Lametti, who Trudeau removed from cabinet in a July 2023 reshuffle, resigned from his position as a member of Parliament and promptly deleted his social media account on X, formerly Twitter.
But Rebel News is suing the former justice minister over a potential coverup of communications made during his crucial tenure in as justice minister. You can read our full lawsuit at StopTheCoverup.com.
Today, the case is back before a judge, as Rebel News boss Ezra Levant provides live updates as the hearing unfolds. Follow along below:
My two lawyers are Chad Williamson and Scott Nicol. I see FOUR lawyers for Lametti, all at taxpayers expense.
The judge is Justice Simon Fothergill of the Federal Court of Canada.— Ezra Levant 🍁🚛 (@ezralevant) February 2, 2024
The court is coming to order. We’re about to begin.— Ezra Levant 🍁🚛 (@ezralevant) February 2, 2024
The clerk says there are four observers — I wonder if any mainstream media are covering this? So far they’ve been pretty silent — they don’t think anything’s wrong with a former cabinet minister destroying documents as he leaves Parliament in disgrace.— Ezra Levant 🍁🚛 (@ezralevant) February 2, 2024
Mitchell correctly says that there is one big disagreement between us: Rebel News demands that the court order Lametti not to delete his Twitter account. Mitchell says only a “promise” (an undertaking) is necessary.— Ezra Levant 🍁🚛 (@ezralevant) February 2, 2024
The judge says an order “reflecting the undertaking” could be issued by the court.— Ezra Levant 🍁🚛 (@ezralevant) February 2, 2024
Scott says there’s no reason why we shouldn’t have a court order, as opposed to just Lametti’s pinky swear undertaking. Scott says “we would question why”.— Ezra Levant 🍁🚛 (@ezralevant) February 2, 2024
Scott says if Lametti’s worried about consequences if he breaks an order, “then don’t break the order”.— Ezra Levant 🍁🚛 (@ezralevant) February 2, 2024
Scott: we actually don’t have any evidence that the account is up in full, other than some screenshots. Scott says he thinks it’s odd that Laments is so focused on avoiding a court order at all costs.— Ezra Levant 🍁🚛 (@ezralevant) February 2, 2024
Lametti’s lawyers have given some case law to Scott, who says he is ready to speak to them. But the judge says that’s not necessary now, as this is just a planning hearing, not a substantive hearing.— Ezra Levant 🍁🚛 (@ezralevant) February 2, 2024
The judge says it appears that Lametti has complied with reinstating the Twitter account.— Ezra Levant 🍁🚛 (@ezralevant) February 2, 2024
Scott: hopefully Lametti won’t destroy other documents, but we’ll focus only on Twitter.— Ezra Levant 🍁🚛 (@ezralevant) February 2, 2024
Why is Lametti so obsessed about not being ordered to stop destroying documents? Is it because he’s already done that?— Ezra Levant 🍁🚛 (@ezralevant) February 2, 2024
Judge: Lametti wouldn’t have control on those other things? Chad: right, the Justice Department would cover that.— Ezra Levant 🍁🚛 (@ezralevant) February 2, 2024
Mitchell: no problem undertaking not to alter the account.
Lametti is working with the Library and Archives office to handle his old records. (That’s news.)
What is he telling them?— Ezra Levant 🍁🚛 (@ezralevant) February 2, 2024
The lawyers are talking about scheduling the delivery of different pleadings.— Ezra Levant 🍁🚛 (@ezralevant) February 2, 2024
Boyd says there’s existing law that regulates the handling of records. The judge repeats it.— Ezra Levant 🍁🚛 (@ezralevant) February 2, 2024
Chad: the issue with just receiving an undertaking is that there are significant social media teams that deal with those accounts — he refers to our litigation against Steven Guilbeault. Chad says a Lametti undertaking isn’t enough to stop others.— Ezra Levant 🍁🚛 (@ezralevant) February 2, 2024
Chad: An undertaking from Lametti doesn’t prevent others from changing those records. The DoJ represent “the Government”. They must also be bound.— Ezra Levant 🍁🚛 (@ezralevant) February 2, 2024
Chad: I’m worried — it sounds like Lametti is engaged with Library and Archives. These are live issues before this court — I don’t think it’s appropriate for Lametti to be interfering in any way with analysis/retention/preservation of this data.— Ezra Levant 🍁🚛 (@ezralevant) February 2, 2024
Chad: the cases provided by Mr. Mitchell were commercial cases, where infringements could be compensable with money. But this is a matter of irreparably harm — a loss of data that could never be found again. An order is required to bind Lametti and the government.— Ezra Levant 🍁🚛 (@ezralevant) February 2, 2024
Chad: there is evidence before this court that notwithstanding the legislative prohibition of documents, the reason we’re here is because Lametti did in fact try to destroy his account!— Ezra Levant 🍁🚛 (@ezralevant) February 2, 2024
Chad: I have a tremendous issue with government official deleting data or hiding data to the press and the public. We have an official that is leaving his tenure and has deleted his Twitter account.— Ezra Levant 🍁🚛 (@ezralevant) February 2, 2024
Judge: we’re not hearing substantive matters right now.— Ezra Levant 🍁🚛 (@ezralevant) February 2, 2024
Judge: if Rebel News insists on some kind of “more robust” interim injunctive release then that needs to be set down for a hearing.— Ezra Levant 🍁🚛 (@ezralevant) February 2, 2024
Judge: can we proceed on consent with an “interim undertaking”? If not, then we need a hearing.
Chad: we’re worried an undertaking doesn’t bind third parties.— Ezra Levant 🍁🚛 (@ezralevant) February 2, 2024
Chad: this doesn’t make sense. Why are they so adamant?— Ezra Levant 🍁🚛 (@ezralevant) February 2, 2024
Mitchell: he’s the former justice minister, we should trust him because of that.— Ezra Levant 🍁🚛 (@ezralevant) February 2, 2024
Scott: a court order prevents the possibility of mischief.— Ezra Levant 🍁🚛 (@ezralevant) February 2, 2024
Scott: there is a big difference between an undertaking and a court order. A court order allows the court to save the day even if there are other malefactors out there.— Ezra Levant 🍁🚛 (@ezralevant) February 2, 2024
Scott: we should have a hearing on this on Monday or Tuesday.
Chad: there has been no evidence from Lametti on anything. They haven’t tried to come to the table at all. They’ve even said it’s not a government account.— Ezra Levant 🍁🚛 (@ezralevant) February 2, 2024
Judge: do the two sides want to try to hammer this out in private?
Chad: we want this to be heard on Monday or Tuesday please.— Ezra Levant 🍁🚛 (@ezralevant) February 2, 2024
Mitchell: if it’s just on the short-term order, we can have a hearing as soon as Monday or Tuesday.
Judge: are you ready to roll on Tuesday?— Ezra Levant 🍁🚛 (@ezralevant) February 2, 2024
Scott: let me confer with my client. (That’s me.)— Ezra Levant 🍁🚛 (@ezralevant) February 2, 2024
Chad: we’re ready to go whenever the court is ready.— Ezra Levant 🍁🚛 (@ezralevant) February 2, 2024
Chad: we are concerned that we heard from Mr. Mitchell that David Lametti has gone “sub rosa” and is interacting directly with Library and Archives. If the court really wants to give them eleven more days, we’re worried.— Ezra Levant 🍁🚛 (@ezralevant) February 2, 2024
Chad: we will accept relevant days, but we would like the court to weigh in on that.— Ezra Levant 🍁🚛 (@ezralevant) February 2, 2024
Judge: the hearing will be heard on Tuesday, Feb. 13th probably by the Vancouver duty judge. I would suggest this for 10 a.m. Vancouver time, 11 a.m. MT, 1 p.m. ET.— Ezra Levant 🍁🚛 (@ezralevant) February 2, 2024
Court is over.— Ezra Levant 🍁🚛 (@ezralevant) February 2, 2024
.