Tirade on Two Trucker Trials and the Endless Trucker Trials

And a media that refuses to call out relentless Crown prosecutions

The mainstream media bias when it comes to the Freedom Convoy seems to be alive well even though it's been over two years since the trucks arrived in downtown Ottawa. Back then the mainstream media stoked the flames to create a firestorm of negativity by depicting convoy members as racists, and knuckle-dragging bigots while accusing them of toting around Nazi flags, attempting to burn down a downtown apartment building and stealing food from the homeless. All of these claims have since been discounted, debunked and exposed as hyperbolic lies, some of which originated with, and/or were propagated by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau himself.   

This story, although on a much smaller scale, demonstrates that same bias, but by omission, rather than making baseless accusations and manufacturing vile falsehoods. 

Many people were arrested and charged with mischief during the Freedom Convoy’s stay in Ottawa, particularly after the Emergencies Act was invoked by the Trudeau government. Aside from the high profile trial of the de facto leaders of the Freedom Convoy, Tamara Lich and Chris Barber, many other individuals also found themselves inside courtrooms defending themselves against trumped up mischief charges brought against them for simply taking part in a peaceful demonstration. 

This is the tale of two individuals who were actually successful in being acquitted of those erroneous charges. Yet, Crown prosecutors in both instances immediately appealed those acquittals; something that has been happening with far too much frequency in convoy cases to be coincidental. That other coincidence it how mainstream media reported on these to cases and the outcomes of their appeals.

The Case of Allan Remley

Allan Remley pictured doing missionary work in Africa.

Seventy-two year old Allan Remley had been charged with mischief for ‘aiding and abetting’ the convoy protest by providing jerrycans supposedly filled with fuel for the truckers. He was acquitted of the charge in April of 2023, by Justice Heather Perkins-McVey, who is also presiding over the Lich-Barber trial. She found that the Crown had failed to prove its case, noting that the investigating officer’s notes on the matter were less than stellar and that Remley had not been afforded the right to legal counsel. The police ‘investigation’ into the matter took place on February 12, 2022, two days before the Emergencies Act was invoked, so no orders for protesters leave had yet been issued.

According to testimony given by the investigating officer he didn’t even know what liquid, if any, was in the jerrycans that were sitting in a wagon near what appeared to be Remley’s truck, and he certainly had not seen Remley filling any of them up. Judge Perkins-McVey summed up the case saying, ”Based on the evidence before me, the best we have is jerrycans in a wagon ten feet away from a truck with dozens of people milling about the area.” She maintained that in the absence of more evidence, doubts persist whether Remley was even committing a crime or shared the same aims or political beliefs as the protesters. 

As I said, the Crown, not happy with the verdict, despite presenting an extremely weak case, launched an appeal that was heard by Ontario Superior Court Justice Narissa Somji, who overturned the acquittal in January of 2024, and ordered a new trial. Somji concluded that Justice Perkins-McVey didn’t adequately take the entire ‘context’ of the protest into account. While, Somji agreed that simply being at the scene wasn’t enough to prove guilt, she found that Perkins-McVey hadn’t taken into account the evidence as a ‘whole’, including the evidence of the ongoing protest, adding that this, “goes beyond engaging in activities the directly blocks or prohibits people from using and enjoying property for its intended purpose.” The date for a new trial is not known. 

The Case of Christine DeCaire

Then there is the case of Christine DeCaire, who was charged with mischief, obstructing a police officer and disobeying a lawful order on February 18, 2022 as part of the police action taken after the Emergencies Act was invoked. She was arrested, along with many others, while simply standing on Nicholas Street. Upon her arrest DeCaire maintained her innocence and requested a lawyer within minutes of being taken into custody, but her request was denied. Another common occurrence in these cases.

On March 23, 2023, following a three-day trial in the Ontario Court of Justice, Judge Norman Boxall acquitted DeCaire of all charges. The Crown had argued that DeCaire’s proximity to vehicles that were obstructing Nicholas Street was sufficient to establish her guilt as either a ‘principal’ or a ‘party’ to mischief. However, Judge Boxall found no evidence that she had engaged in any acts of mischief or that she had intended to participate in any obstructive activities. Evidence corroborated by police witnesses themselves further indicated that DeCaire had been cooperative throughout her arrest and detention. The Court also found that the failure to provide legal advice to DeCaire upon her request was a breach of her Charter right to counsel. And once again, unhappy with the ruling the Crown launched an appeal. 

In reviewing the appeal, Ontario Superior Court Justice Narissa  Somji – interestingly  the same judge who had overturned Remley’s acquittal – in this case upheld the original not guilty verdict. She again noted, as Justice Boxall had, that there was no evidence connecting DeCaire to any specific acts of mischief or showing that she was involved with the vehicles obstructing the street. Boxall had also considered the possibility that DeCaire might have been present on the street that day out of curiosity or to passively protest. Justice Somji found this to be a reasonable inference and that the Crown's interpretation of her presence as ‘criminal intent’ was not supported by the evidence. She concluded the Crown had not provided sufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that DeCaire’s presence was intended to contribute to the mischief. She also emphasized that individuals do have the right to assemble and protest peacefully. 

So what is the point of these two trial and appeals with two different outcomes. It is how the mainstream media reported on them — or didn’t.

In the case of Allan Remley, I will say that to its credit, at the least the Ottawa Citizen reported on the initial trial that found him not guilty, but that was it far as media coverage went. However, when his case was appealed and the not guilty verdict was overturned, the story was carried by the Canadian Press wire service and picked up by news outlets across the country. Most of the headlines for the story noted that the overturning of Remley’s not guilty verdict by an Ontario Superior Court could have an impact on the outcome of the mischief trial of Tamara Lich and Chris Barber — a not a good one.

By contrast in the case of Christine DeCaire her trial and her acquittal received no coverage at all, nor did the outcome of her appeal, which could also have a bearing on the Lich-Barber trial—a positive one. The Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedom who provided legal counsel for DeCaire for both her trial and the appeal posted a public release on the trial, and the appeal, on its website so it is not like the media couldn’t have followed up on the matter had they wanted to.

In fact, both cases were brought up on the final day Lich-Barber trial, for which many reporters were present. The Crown prosecutor in its final submission to the Court, in answer to the final arguments presented by the defence attorneys on behalf of their clients, mentioned the Remley case in particular. Diane Magas, Chris Barber’s lawyer brought up the DeCaire case, which is not surprising given she was the attorney record for DeCaire’s appeal.

Maybe I am splitting hairs here in terms of the difference in the media coverage of these case. But there is another matter that the mainstream media should be questioning and investigating and isn’t. That is the pattern that has emerged in the Crown’s relentless prosecution of those who were charged with offences for their participation in the Freedom Convoy protest. And that pattern is to seek convictions based on thin evidence and to seek severe penalties when they win their cases. Or, when they lose their cases, as they did with Remley and DeCaire, launch appeals and seek retrials.

All of this costs money, taxpayers money, to prosecute minor offences such as public mischief, most often against people who have no criminal records. And for those caught in the cross-hairs of this legal maze they must find lawyers to defend them and that costs money — lots of money. Some, like DeCaire were helped in this by the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedom, but others may not be so lucky. And what’s worse, even if they do win their cases, like DeCaire and Remely did, they get dragged back into court for appeals and possible retrials. Meanwhile, violent criminal charges are being withdrawn due to clogged courts yet this lunacy continues, consuming the time, energy and causing a loss of public trust in Canada’s justice system. Perhaps if the media shone a light on this, and exposed what could be seen as persecution, rather than prosecution at taxpayers expense, it might just cause enough embarrassment to courts, the Crown and the government to it to stop. Oh, but I dream…