Coutts Three Found Guilty but Have No Regrets About Their Roles in the Protest

All three considered it a moral imperative to stand up for the rights of Canadians

Three farmers, three family men, three husbands and fathers were found guilty of the charge of mischief over $5000 by a jury in a Lethbridge courtroom after just three hours of deliberations on April 17, 2024. Marco Van Huigenbos, George Janzen and Alex Van Herk, who, by virtue of their ability to negotiate, to clearly communicate, and to maintain cordial relations with the RCMP to ensure the protest at the border blockade in Coutts, Alberta remained peaceful, now face the prospect of going to prison. That really doesn’t sound right, does it?  Three men, who had hoped the jury would recognize that they, along with thousands of others, had the courage and moral conviction to stand up to what they saw as huge government overreach, at all levels, with the imposition of unlawful and constitutional mandates and restrictions during the pandemic. They had hoped the jury would see it that way, but they didn’t.

Although the guilty verdict seems odd, given that it did not seem that the Crown prosecutor Stephen Johnston had a particularly strong case. In his opening statements to the jury Johnston stated with considerable confidence that he was going to prove that these men ‘spearheaded’ the protest and that they led it. If you look up the term spearheaded the definition is clear: ‘to lead an attack or movement’. Yet, throughout the trial the evidence that was presented to the jury to prove this claim really left a lot open to interpretation as to whether the three men were leaders, or simply messengers or concilliators speaking on behalf of the protesters.

Or you can make a one time donation to my newsletter via Ko-fi

RCMP officers Greg Tulloch and Mark Wielgosz.

The two RCMP officers that had the most dealings with them had differing opinions. Sgt. Tulloch characterized Van Huigenbos as ‘growing into the role of leader’, while admitting he couldn’t say whether Huigenbos had orchestrated the protest from the beginning. The other police officer, Staff Sgt. Wielgosz, agreed the men acted more like conduits bringing the consensus of the protesters to them. Both officers noted in their testimonies that there various were different factions of the protests who had differing opinions and goals. So the question would be, which faction or factions were these men leading, if any, and that question was never really answered. 

Johnston, in the way he framed his closing arguments, seemed to have recognized this shortcoming, because all of sudden instead of talking about his having successfully proven their leadership role, he told the jury it didn’t have to determine if the men were ‘kingpins’ of the protest to find them guilty. He said, quote, “The Crown does not have to prove these men were the leaders.” All the jurors had to do, according to Johnston, was to be satisfied that they were demonstrably supporting the blockade. That, he told them, should be enough to convict. He said it was clear the men supported the blockade, and that they spoke on behalf of the protesters. That, he told them, should leave you with no doubt these men are guilty. It would seem then, from Johnston’s perspective, that everyone who participated in the protest at Coutts should be on trial with these three men.

What is also interesting is that the presiding judge, Justice Keith Yamauchi, in his charge to the jury, gave the jurors a pretty wide berth in terms of how to go about their deliberations in determining guilt. He told the jury that the criminality of the Coutts blockade wasn’t in dispute because obstructing traffic on a public road without a legitimate cause is unlawful. What's in question, the judge said, is whether or not the three defendants were guilty of having blocked the road with vehicles or anything else. Yamauchi also told the jury that saying or doing things that motivate others to commit mischief does not automatically amount to commission of the crime of counselling others to mischief. He said mischief is the wilful obstruction of the lawful use, enjoyment, or operation of property. The jury during their deliberations had one question which was about the crime of mischief. They asked if the defendants must be found to have executed all four elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt in order to be found guilty of its commission. The judge said that was the case.

Defence lawyers in their closing remarks to the jury reminded them that both RCMP officers Wielgosz and Tulloch that had liaised with the Coutts protesters, who testified as Crown witnesses, said that they did not observe any clear evidence that the defendants were leaders of the protests. Van Heugenbos’s attorney told the jury that his client simply stumbled into a position of spokesperson. “Circumstances conspired so that he became the point of contact with the RCMP. That doesn’t make him a leader.” he said, “You might as well blame the postman because he brings you your bills. 

It all seems rather bizarre. The Crown prosecutor begins his case fully determined that he is going to prove that these guys were the leaders of the protest. It seemed that this was what much of his case pivoted on and that was clearly the focus of most of the trial and the evidence. Yet the evidence of leadership was never made clear, nor was there any clear evidence that these men physically blocked highways or roadways. The leadership question was, one could say, left open to interpretation. Yet, under the law, doesn’t the Crown have to prove something beyond a reasonable doubt to win its case and it really didn’t seem the Crown had. So, suddenly in his closing remarks to the jury the Crown prosecutor Stephen Johnston, does an about turn and decides, despite what he told the jury at the outset of the trial, that he really didn’t have to prove whether they were leaders of the protest to prove their guilt. He only had to prove that they participated and supported the blockade and the protest. Well, again, wouldn’t that mean that anyone who went to the protest at Coutts was also as guilty as them. So are these guys, scapegoats, or being held up, by the Crown, as examples of what can happen to a person if they protest, through civil disobedience, against the tyrannical actions of their government? It gives one pause, and should give all Canadians pause as well.

All three men, while disappointed, have accepted the jury’s verdict with quiet courage, worried more about their families than themselves, in terms of what the future holds. Yet none of them express any regrets for their actions. Van Huigenbos posted on X the following thoughts, "A feeling of thankfulness and peace that comes from above. Our legal system may find me/us guilty, but the legality and morality of our country are no longer aligned. When you understand this, you will know why men and women were on Highway 4 from Jan 29th-Feb 15th."

Alex Van Herk and Marco Huigenbois respond to verdict.

This following interview provides a good sense of their thoughts on the verdict. Interview with Alex van Herk and Marco Van Huigenbos

The men still believe, regardless of the verdict, that what they did was necessary in the face of what they, and the other protesters viewed as tyrannical governments that continued to impose lock downs, mandates and further authoritarian and unnecessary measures during the COVID pandemic that were untenable. They say they had tried other means to get governments to hear their concerns about how these measures were harming families, businesses, and the very social fabric of their communities, but their concerns fell on deaf ears. They had hoped the jury would understand why the Coutts protest along with others that coincided with the Freedom Convoy happened.

Van Huigenbos described the protesters at Coutts as conscientious objectors to multiple tyrannical levels of government. Asked in an interview with Rebel News if he would do it again, he responded that he hoped he would never have to, but added, “Given the reality of the world today, it will force someone else to do it at a given time.” But he said if he had to do it again, in this same context, he said that he would without a thought, but he would do it better, admitting they made mistakes. But he said it is not about mistakes it about the successes, in that the Coutts protest resulted in the lifting of COVID restrictions the province and the resignation of Jason Kenny, the Alberta premier that had imposed them.

The three men could face as much as ten years in prison which is the maximum sentence for the crime of mischief over $5000. There is however no minimum sentence, so their sentence will depend on a number of factors. Those factors include what the Crown is seeking, what the defence thinks is appropriate and the contents of the men’s presentencing reports that have been ordered. The judge will also have some discretion in determining what the sentence might be, which could range from a period of probation or house arrest to the maximum of ten years in prison. Whatever that may be, the men and their families will have to wait until July 22, 2024, to hear what their futures may hold. 

But this trial and its verdict may be a harbinger for others caught in the dragnet of arrested related to the Freedom Convoy, and that includes the trial of Freedom Convoy ‘leaders’ Tamara Lich and Chris Barber which is taking place in Ottawa has yet to be completed. There are others who have already gone to trial and been found guilty of the charges laid against, others who have been acquitted have had their acquittals overturned by Liberal appointed judges. It would seem the Trudeau government, which invoke the Emergencies Act to end the Convoy, which has since been deemed illegal, is still sending a message to a certain class of people who oppose his government overreach or its policies, and that would be the working class and normal citizens who just want to be heard, in a country that I fear is no longer a democracy. And that too, should give all Canadian’s pause, no matter what their social status.

Or you can make a one time donation to my newsletter via Ko-fi