Judge Says Convoy Itself was 'Mischief', Ergo -- Protester Charged with Mischief, Must be Guilty

Dangerous precedent for convoy protesters still facing charges

So another Freedom Convoy participant, Jason (Jay) Vandervier, has been found guilty of ‘mischief’, following his trial in Ottawa that concluded on February 19, 2024, again almost two years after the Freedom Convoy came to an end with the Trudeau government’s invocation of the Emergencies Act. The judge, Justice Peter Wright, deliberated on Vanderwier’s case for a month before issuing his verdict on March 19, 2024. A verdict which, again, is just another example of the bias convoy participants who were charged as a result of their participation in the protest, face from Liberal dominated courts.  

Venderwier, who brought ‘The Shed’ to Ottawa, became a prominent figure associated with the convoy over the course of his stay. A truck driver and beef farmer from just outside of Niagara Falls, when he decided to go to Ottawa to join the protest Vanderwier took his own accommodations along by putting an ice-fishing hut on the back of his Freightliner truck. Upon his arrival in the city police directed him where to park, which was on Wellington Street, right in front of Parliament where he stayed for the duration of the protest. About half-way through the protest his ice-hut took on a whole new identity and life of its own, when another convoy participant who Vanderwier had offered shelter to in his ice-hut ‘accommodations’ suggested they build a media platform on top of the hut. Construction took place in a single day as so many pitched in, donating lumber, manpower, supplies and hot food.

You can make a one time donation to my newsletter via Ko-fi or

Before long a Live From the Shed banner went up and then cameras were installed, initially for security, but soon, after satellite internet equipment was donated by a friendly stranger,  and Vanderwier was live streaming on YouTube, ‘Live from the Shed’, bringing Canadians real stories of the people who had joined the convoy, or were supporting it, and showing Canada what was really happening in the streets of downtown Ottawa, rather than the lies the news media was telling them about the convoy.

Vanderwier was arrested at gunpoint on the second day of the police action brought on by the invocation of the Act. Ordered out of his truck by police, he was manhandled during the course of his arrest as he witnessed others being kicked, kneed and punched as they too were being arrested by police, He was charged with a number of criminal offences including mischief, and resisting arrest, a charge that was later dropped. 

In finding Vanderwier guilty of mischief, the Justice Wright had some very worrisome reasoning for coming to that conclusion; that being that he apparently viewed the entire convoy as an act of ‘mischief’ in of itself – ergo – anyone who participated in this ‘act’ of ‘mischief’ was also guilty of mischief. It is a circular argument and that could be setting a dangerous precedent for other judges presiding over the trials of convoy participants facing mischief charges to look to. Citing this judge’s reasoning, could give them easy grounds for finding any, and all convoy participants guilty, if for no other reason than they participated in the convoy protest.  

How the judge arrived at the decision, beyond perhaps a personal bias against the convoy, is a valid question to ask. Because for the convoy to be viewed as an act of ‘mischief’ it would have to be viewed as illegal, yet it never was. When Ontario Superior Court Justice Hugh McLean issued his court order on February 7, 2022 to stop the truckers from honking their horns for ten days, he maintained that; provided the terms of his Order were complied with, the Defendants (convoy protesters) and other persons “remain at liberty to engage in a peaceful, lawful, and safe  protest.” Even when the Trudeau government invoked the Emergencies Act, it never arrived at the conclusion that the protest was ‘illegal’. Ironically, though, Canada’s Federal Court has since determined that Trudeau’s decision to invoke the Act, was not just illegal, but unconstitutional and unjustified. And in his ruling he never gave any indication that the protest was illegal, annoying, yes, but not illegal.

But Wright is not the only judge who seems to want to portray the convoy as an ‘illegal’ act. There is the case of another convoy participant Allan Remley who was acquitted of mischief charges for his participation in the convoy by Justice Heather Perkins-McVey, ruling the Crown had failed to adequately prove that he was engaged in mischief during the protest.

But on an appeal launched by the Crown, Superior Court Justice Narissa Somji overturned the acquittal ordering a retrial. Somji disagreed with Perkins-McVey’s verdict, concluding that she didn’t take the ‘context’ of the protest into account. She stated she found Perkins-McVey’s decision didn’t take into consideration, “the evidence as a whole, including evidence of the ongoing protest.” It would seem to me, based on these comments, this judge is also making a case that the convoy and all its activities were a type of ‘mischief’ she considered illegal. Oh, and by that way, Somji, was appointed to the bench by none other than former Attorney General and Justice Minister for the Trudeau government David Lametti. 

Vandervier now has to wait another couple of months before he returns to court for sentencing. His lawyer is hopeful that the judge will exercise some leniency given Vandervier’s good standing as a citizen. There is, however, no guarantee as Crown’s involved in convoy cases, to date have leaned towards seeking harsher penalties, which are in all likelihood politically motivated. Vandervier’s lawyer Daniel Anber has hinted at the possibility of appealing the ruling based on this judge’s interpretation that the convoy itself was a ‘mischief’ as well as the interpretation of constitutional rights. But, this case and the verdict, as I said at the outset and as I noted in a previous article, demonstrates a pattern emerging when it comes to individuals who were arrested and charged after the invocation of the Emergencies Act.

Artur Pawlowski and James Sowery, both convicted.

Those that are tried, are often found guilty, such as Artur Pawlowski, whose only association with the Freedom Convoy was giving a sermon to those participating in the border blockade protest in Coutts, Alberta, which was an offshoot of the Ottawa Freedom Convoy. He was found guilty of mischief, and was sentenced to time served, because he had already spent two months in jail after being denied bail on that charge. He is appealing his conviction. James Sowery who was also at the protest in Coutts was recently sentenced to ten months in prison for allegedly trying to hit a police officer at a check stop with his truck. He has been released in bail, pending his appeal. In another example, convoy participants Pat King, James Bauder, and Randy Hillier, all facing a host of charges made a bid for a change of venue for their trials. They all felt they could not get a fair jury trial in Ottawa, due to the bad publicity the convoy received thanks to an extremely bias mainstream media. Their requests were denied.

Meanwhile Freedom Convoy organizers Tamara Lich and Chris Barber, who opted for a trial by judge, have seen their trial for assorted mischief charges drag on and on for months. If Justice Wright is correct, why waste all that valuable court time – because to use his reasoning – Justice Perkins-McVey who is presiding over the Lich-Barber trial could have come to the same conclusion as him. She could forgo all the evidence and arguments and pronounce them guilty. Interestingly though, Perkins-McVey warned the Crown from the outset of the trial, that it was not the convoy that was on trial. However, she has already had one acquittal overturned for that using that type of reasoning; so she might have to reconsider that position.

The Freedom Convoy, despite that fact it had thousands, if not millions of supporters, was shabbily treated by the Trudeau government, by the mainstream media and by the police, and now they are getting the same treatment in the courts. These cases demonstrate a distinct bias against Freedom Convoy participants that aligns with that of the Trudeau government’s view of them. While one Federal Court judge may have had the will to rebuke the government for its unjustified use of the Emergencies Act, other judges and Crowns appear happy to stay the course on making convoy participants pay the price for challenging the government. It is not a good look, and should cause any Canadian, regardless of how they felt about the Freedom Convoy, to question the integrity and fairness of Canada’s current justice system.

You can make a one time donation to my newsletter via Ko-fi or