COVID-19
Questions linger after Coutts verdict

Chris Carbert and Anthony Olienick Courtesy Bridge City News/YouTube
From the Frontier Centre for Public Policy
By Ray McGinnis
The Coutts trial may be over, but the questions it raises about justice and overreach continue.
A jury in the trial of Chris Carbert and Anthony “Tony” Olienick rendered a NOT GUILTY verdict on a charge of conspiracy to commit murder of police officers. Known as the Coutts Two, Carbert and Olienick’s trial lasted from June 6 to August 2, 2024. After two and a half days of deliberations, the jury also found the pair GUILTY of possession of weapons for a dangerous purpose, and mischief over $5,000. Olienick was also found GUILTY of possession of explosives for a dangerous purpose.
On February 13, 2022, Olienick was arrested outside Smuggler’s Saloon. Early on February 14, 2022, Chris Carbert was awakened from his sleep in a trailer by police loudspeaker.
Two Co-Accused Had All Charges Dropped in February
Conspiracy, possession of weapons, and mischief charges were also laid against Chris Lysak and Jerry Morin. Carbert, Olienick, Lysak and Morin, were dubbed the Coutts Four.
Lysak was arrested in Coutts late on February 13, 2022. Morin was arrested heading west of Calgary on Hwy. 22. He would work for a rancher near Priddis, a three-hour drive from Coutts. Lysak and Morin had all the original charges in the indictment dropped on Feb 6th, 2024.
Lysak pleaded to improper storage of a firearm. That charge typically results in a minor fine, not two years behind bars. Morin pled guilty to conspiracy to traffic firearms, not to trafficking firearms. Two years in custody — including solitary confinement and being witness to brutality between prisoners — had taken its toll.
Tony Olienick’s lawyer, Marilyn Burns, told this reporter, Morin was not guilty of the new charge to which he plead. But this was the plea deal the Crown would agree to. Morin and Lysak were released after 723 days behind bars.
Carbert and Olienick maintained their innocence. However, pre-trial deliberations in court dribbled out for over a year before the trial itself.
The Accused Were Unarmed
None of the original Coutts Four — Carbert, Olienick, Lysak or Morin — were armed when arrested. None had a criminal record. Three of the four are fathers with children. Before his arrest, Lethbridge resident Chris Carbert was a self-employed fisherman who also ran a landscaping and fencing business with nine employees.
Years before his arrest, Tony Olienick took part of the clean-up in High River, Alberta, after the 2013 floods. The self-employed gravel truck owner got contract work at a stone quarry.
Coutts Charges Cited to Invoke Emergencies Act
At the Public Order Emergency Commission inquiry in November 2022, several senior cabinet and government officials cited events in Coutts as one of the triggers for invoking the Emergencies [War Measures] Act on February 14, 2022. Deputy Prime Minister Chrystia Freeland testified “we heard from the RCMP Commissioner about concerns that there were serious weapons in Coutts . . . that really raised the stakes in terms of my degree of concern about what could be happening.”
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau stated, “the occupation at Coutts seemed to be emboldened.”
Coutts Mayor, Jimmy Willett described the protesters as “Domestic Terrorists.” Public Safety Minister Marco Mendicino testified “the situation was combustible… individuals… involved in Coutts were prepared to go down with a fight that could lead to the loss of life, . . . would have triggered other events across the country.”
The Clerk of the Privy Council, Janice Charette, pointed to the “seriousness” and “scale” of the “illegal activity,” “the quantity of weapons and ammunition discovered by the RCMP… contemplated by people at Coutts.” This confirmed her view that these people were insurrectionists, bent on “overthrowing the government.”
Yet, no bodycam footage and no recording entered as evidence in the trial substantiated claims by RCMP that Carbert or Olienick plotted violence against police. In January 2024, a federal court ruled the invocation of the Emergencies Act was “unconstitutional.” The August 2 not guilty verdict for conspiracy to commit murder adds to the perception of government overreaction to the protests.
A Surprise from the Crown
In its closing words to the jury, the Crown suddenly alleged there was a hand-off of weapons on February 11, 2022.
The Crown should provide full disclosure to the defence before the trial concludes so allegations can be tested in court. Never mind. This last-minute allegation may have swayed the jury to find the defendants guilty of the possession of firearms charge and Olienick of possession of an explosive device for a dangerous purpose.
Sentencing and bail hearings were scheduled from August 26 to 30. The week of September 9, the judge at the Coutts Two trial will hand down sentences for both of the accused given their combination of i) not guilty of conspiracy to commit murder verdict by the jury and ii) guilty verdicts for possession of a weapon for a dangerous purpose and mischief, and for Olienick a separate guilty verdict for possession of an explosive for a dangerous purpose.
By then, the pair will have been in custody for 935 days.
This commentary is first of a three part series. Read part two here, and three here.
Ray McGinnis is a Senior Fellow with the Frontier Centre for Public Policy. His forthcoming book is Unjustified: The Emergencies Act and the Inquiry that Got It Wrong
COVID-19
Biden Admin concealed report on earliest COVID cases from 2019

MxM News
Quick Hit:
A newly uncovered Defense Department report reveals that seven U.S. troops may have contracted COVID-19 during the 2019 World Military Games in Wuhan—months before the official pandemic timeline. The Biden administration kept the report from the public for over two years, despite a legal requirement to release it.
Key Details:
- A December 2022 Pentagon report shows seven U.S. service members showed COVID-like symptoms after attending the 2019 Wuhan games.
- The Biden administration withheld the report, which was required by law to be made public in 2022, until it was quietly posted online in March 2025.
- Evidence contradicts Biden officials’ 2021 claims and adds weight to theories that COVID-19 leaked from a Chinese lab before December 2019.
Diving Deeper:
The Biden administration withheld a critical Pentagon report for more than two years, one that sheds new light on the origins of the COVID-19 pandemic. According to documents obtained by the Washington Free Beacon, seven U.S. military service members may have contracted COVID-19 during or shortly after the 2019 World Military Games in Wuhan, China—a full two months before China officially acknowledged the outbreak.
The report, completed in December 2022, was mandated for public release by the National Defense Authorization Act. Yet, the administration only passed it to select Congressional committees and failed to make it publicly accessible as required. It wasn’t until March 2025 that the report quietly appeared on a Defense Department site under a section dedicated to “quality-of-life” issues—far from public view.
This revelation directly contradicts claims made by Biden administration officials in 2021, including then-Defense Department spokesman John Kirby, who stated there was “no knowledge” of any infections among the U.S. participants. The Trump administration had also denied early on that troops were tested or showed symptoms, citing the timing of the games before China’s outbreak announcement.
Held just miles from the Wuhan Institute of Virology—where controversial, U.S.-funded gain-of-function research was conducted—the 2019 games have long drawn suspicion from national security and public health experts. Prominent biologist Dr. Richard Ebright told the Free Beacon the report confirms that COVID was already circulating and likely leaked from the Wuhan lab: “This new information strengthens U.S. and allied intelligence data.”
Adding more context, athletes from European countries such as France, Germany, and Italy also reported flu-like symptoms in Wuhan, describing the city at the time as unusually empty—a “ghost town.” All seven American service members recovered quickly, and the Pentagon has not revealed when it first became aware of the cases.
Sen. Joni Ernst (R-Iowa) called the report’s concealment an “outrage,” noting it directly undermines the long-promoted narrative that COVID began at a Wuhan wet market in December 2019. “Taxpayers deserve to know the truth,” she said. “This report should have been made public immediately.”
Congressional Republicans have consistently asserted that the Wuhan games were among the first super spreader events of the pandemic. In 2021, House Foreign Affairs Republicans issued findings supporting that theory. Meanwhile, multiple federal agencies—including the CIA, FBI, and Energy Department—now publicly believe COVID most likely originated from the Wuhan Institute of Virology.
COVID-19
Randy Hillier wins appeal in Charter challenge to Covid lockdowns

Former Ontario Member of Provincial Parliament Randy Hillier in the Ontario Legislature (Photo credit: The Canadian Press/Chris Young)
The Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms is pleased that the Ontario Court of Appeal has accepted former Ontario MPP Randy Hillier’s appeal and overturned a lower court ruling that had dismissed his Charter challenge to Ontario’s lockdown regulations. These regulations were in effect during the 2021 Covid lockdowns.
The decision was released by the Ontario Court of Appeal on Monday, April 7, 2025.
In the spring of 2021, Mr. Hillier attended peaceful protests in Kemptville and Cornwall, Ontario. He spoke about the importance of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the harms caused by the province’s lockdown regulations. The government’s health orders made it illegal for even two people to assemble together outdoors: a blatant and unjustified restriction of the Charter section 2(c) freedom of peaceful assembly. Other provinces allowed five or ten or more people to gather together outdoors.
Mr. Hillier has outstanding charges in Kemptville, Cornwall, Peterborough, Belleville, and Smith Falls. Prosecutors in those jurisdictions are waiting to see the results of this Charter challenge. Mr. Hillier has faced similar charges in many other jurisdictions across Ontario, but these have been stayed or withdrawn at the request of the respective prosecutors.
Mr. Hillier defended himself against the tickets that were issued to him for violating lockdown restrictions by arguing that these lockdown regulations were unjustified violations of Charter section 2(c), which protects freedom of peaceful assembly.
Four expert reports were filed to support Mr. Hillier’s case, including the report of Dr. Kevin Bardosh, which extensively reviewed the many ways in which lockdowns harmed Canadians. They showed alarming mental health deterioration during the pandemic among Canadians, including psychological distress, insomnia, depression, fatigue, suicidal ideation, self-harm, anxiety disorders and deteriorating life satisfaction, caused in no small part by prolonged lockdowns. Many peer-reviewed studies show that mental health continued to decline in 2021 compared to 2020. The expert report also provides abundant data about other lockdown harms, including drug overdoses, a rise in obesity, unemployment, and the destruction of small businesses, which were prevented from competing with big-box stores.
Justice Joseph Callaghan dismissed that challenge in a ruling issued November 22, 2023. Notably, Justice Callaghan did not reference any evidence of lockdown harms that Dr. Bardosh had provided to the court. Without reasons, the court declared that Dr. Bardosh is “not a public health expert” and then ignored the abundant evidence of lockdown harms.
Lawyers for Mr. Hillier filed a Notice of Appeal with the Ontario Court of Appeal on December 22, 2023.
Mr. Hillier’s Appeal argued that, among other things, Justice Callaghan erred in applying the Oakes test. As the Notice of Appeal states, Justice Callaghan “fail[ed] to recognize that a complete ban on Charter protected activity is subject to a more onerous test for demonstrable justification at the minimal impairment and proportionality branches of Oakes.”
The Oakes test was developed by the Supreme Court of Canada in the 1986 case R. v. Oakes, as a way to evaluate if an infringement of a Charter right can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society. That test has three parts. The first requires that the means be rationally connected to the objective. The second is that it should cause minimal impairment to the right. The third is proportionality, in the sense that the objective of impairing the right must be sufficiently important.
Mr. Hillier’s Appeal focused on the second part of the Oakes test: whether the regulations were minimally impairing of Mr. Hillier’s 2(c) freedom where they effectively banned all peaceful protest.
Justice Centre President John Carpay stated, “It is refreshing to see a court do its job of protecting our Charter freedoms, by holding government to a high standard. There was no science behind Ontario’s total ban on all outdoor protests.”
-
conflict2 days ago
Zelensky Alleges Chinese Nationals Fighting for Russia, Calls for Global Response
-
John Stossel1 day ago
Government Gambling Hypocrisy: Bad Odds and No Competition
-
2025 Federal Election2 days ago
An In-Depth Campaign Trail “Interview” With Pierre Poilievre
-
2025 Federal Election2 days ago
Harper Endorses Poilievre at Historic Edmonton Rally: “This Crisis Was Made in Canada”
-
2025 Federal Election2 days ago
WATCH: Massive Crowd for Historic Edmonton Poilievre Rally
-
2025 Federal Election18 hours ago
Communist China helped boost Mark Carney’s image on social media, election watchdog reports
-
2025 Federal Election2 days ago
Mark Carney’s radical left-wing, globalist record proves he is Justin Trudeau 2.0
-
2025 Federal Election17 hours ago
Fifty Shades of Mark Carney