The Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms announces that the Ontario Court of Justice will hold a hearing at 10:00 a.m. ET on Wednesday, November 26 at 161 Elgin Street, Ottawa, regarding the Crown’s attempt to permanently seize “Big Red,” the 2004 Kenworth long-haul truck relied upon by peaceful Freedom Convoy protestor Chris Barber and his family trucking business.

Constitutional lawyer Diane Magas, who represents Mr. Barber, is opposing the forfeiture.

“The impact of the forfeiture of ‘Big Red’, which is an essential part of the operation of Mr. Barber’s trucking business and is relied upon by Mr. Barber, his family as well as employees, is not what Parliament had in mind when enacting those forfeiture provisions, especially considering the context of a political protest where the police told Mr. Barber where to park the truck and when Mr. Barber moved the truck after being asked to move it,” she said.

Mr. Barber, a Saskatchewan trucker and central figure in the peaceful 2022 Freedom Convoy, depends on this vehicle for his livelihood. The Crown alleges that his truck constitutes “offence-related property.”

The November 26 hearing will address the Crown’s application to seize the truck and will include evidence regarding ownership and corporate title. The Court will also consider an application filed earlier this year by Mr. Barber’s family, who are asserting their rights as interested third parties and seeking to prevent the loss of the vehicle.

Mr. Barber was found guilty of mischief and counselling others to breach a court order following the peaceful Freedom Convoy protest, despite his consistent cooperation with law enforcement and reliance on legal advice during the events of early 2022. At sentencing, the Court acknowledged that he “came with the noblest of intent and did not advocate for violence,” emphasizing that Mr. Barber encouraged calm and compliance.

Mr. Barber said, “‘Big Red’ is how I put food on the table. I followed every instruction police gave me during the protest, and I never imagined the government would try to take the very truck I rely on to earn a living.”

The Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms has released a new report titled Manufacturing consent: Government behavioural engineering of Canadians, authored by veteran journalist and researcher Nigel Hannaford. The report warns that the federal government has embedded behavioural science tactics in its operations in order to shape Canadians’ beliefs, emotions, and behaviours—without transparency, debate, or consent.

The report details how the Impact and Innovation Unit (IIU) in Ottawa is increasingly using sophisticated behavioural psychology, such as “nudge theory,” and other message-testing tools to influence the behaviour of Canadians.

Modelled after the United Kingdom’s Behavioural Insights Team, the IIU was originally presented as an innocuous “innovation hub.” In practice, the report argues, it has become a mechanism for engineering public opinion to support government priorities.

With the arrival of Covid, the report explains, the IIU’s role expanded dramatically. Internal government documents reveal how the IIU worked alongside the Public Health Agency of Canada to test and design a national communications strategy aimed at increasing compliance with federal vaccination and other public health directives.

Among these strategies, the government tested fictitious news reports on thousands of Canadians to see how different emotional triggers would help reduce public anxiety about emerging reports of adverse events following immunization. These tactics were designed to help achieve at least 70 percent vaccination uptake, the target officials associated with reaching “herd immunity.”

IIU techniques included emotional framing—using fear, reassurance, or urgency to influence compliance with policies such as lockdowns, mask mandates, and vaccine requirements. The government also used message manipulation by emphasizing or omitting details to shape how Canadians interpreted adverse events after taking the Covid vaccine to make them appear less serious.

The report further explains that the government adopted its core vaccine message—“safe and effective”—before conclusive clinical or real-world data even existed. The government then continued promoting that message despite early reports of adverse reactions to the injections.

Government reliance on behavioural science tactics—tools designed to steer people’s emotions and decisions without open discussion—ultimately substituted genuine public debate with subtle behavioural conditioning, making these practices undemocratic. Instead of understanding the science first, the government focused primarily on persuading Canadians to accept its narrative. In response to these findings, the Justice Centre is calling for immediate safeguards to protect Canadians from covert psychological manipulation by their own government.

The report urges:

1. Parliamentary oversight of all behavioural science uses within federal departments, ensuring elected representatives retain oversight of national policy.
2. Public disclosure of all behavioural research conducted with taxpayer funds, creating transparency of government influence on Canadians’ beliefs and decisions.
3. Independent ethical review of any behavioural interventions affecting public opinion or individual autonomy, ensuring accountability and informed consent.

Report author Mr. Hannaford said, “No democratic government should run psychological operations on its own citizens without oversight. If behavioural science is being used to influence public attitudes, then elected representatives—not unelected strategists—must set the boundaries.”