COVID-19
Supreme Court of Canada Fails to Defend Freedom by Refusing to Hear Travel Mandate Cases
From The Opposition with Dan Knight
The Court’s Refusal to Hear Vaccine Mandate Challenges Shows a Troubling Endorsement of Government Overreach
Let’s call this what it is: a shocking abandonment of judicial duty and a blatant disregard for Canadians’ fundamental rights. The Supreme Court of Canada has just refused to hear two critical cases that challenged the federal COVID vaccine travel mandate. This isn’t just a legal technicality. It’s a clear message from the highest court in the land: “We’re not interested in defending your freedoms. We’d rather sidestep controversy and protect government overreach.”
The cases in question, Peckford et al. v. Canada and Hon. Maxime Bernier v. Canada, were crucial tests of the limits of government power. The Honourable Brian Peckford, the last living signer of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and Maxime Bernier, leader of the People’s Party of Canada, stood up to challenge the draconian mandates that the Trudeau government imposed. These mandates effectively barred unvaccinated Canadians from traveling — a blatant violation of mobility rights under the Charter. Yet, the Supreme Court has chosen to declare these cases “moot,” arguing that since the mandates have been lifted, there’s no point in reviewing their legality.
Judicial Evasion: A Dangerous Precedent
Let’s be clear: the court’s decision to duck out of these cases isn’t just a mistake; it’s a dangerous precedent. By labeling the cases moot, the Supreme Court has effectively allowed the government to evade scrutiny of its actions. This is nothing short of judicial cowardice. The government can impose sweeping restrictions, violate Charter rights, and then simply withdraw those measures to avoid legal accountability. It’s a dirty trick, and the Supreme Court just endorsed it.
Consider this: the vaccine mandate was not based on any scientific evidence or medical advice. This isn’t speculation; it’s fact. Under cross-examination, a government bureaucrat admitted as much. The mandate was a political decision, plain and simple, driven by the whims of Justin Trudeau and his Cabinet. And now, the Supreme Court has decided that Canadians don’t deserve to know whether these actions were lawful.
A Government Out of Control
At the heart of this issue is a government that believes it is above the law. The Trudeau administration imposed these mandates without proper justification, effectively restricting the movement of millions of Canadians and trampling on their rights. The Minister of Transport even threatened to reinstate the mandates “without hesitation” — an ominous warning that should have alarmed every freedom-loving citizen.
The applicants in these cases argued that the doctrine of mootness should not apply when emergency orders are designed to evade judicial review. They were right. Emergency orders, unlike legislation, are decreed by the Cabinet and protected by Cabinet privilege. This means Canadians are kept in the dark about the real reasons behind these decisions. The Supreme Court had a duty to shine a light on this abuse of power, but it chose darkness instead.
A Call to Action
This decision isn’t just a legal defeat; it’s a moral failure. It’s a signal that in Canada, your rights can be violated, and the government won’t be held accountable. Canadians should be outraged. If the courts won’t defend our freedoms, who will? The Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms has been one of the few voices standing up for Canadians’ rights, but they can’t do it alone. It’s time for every Canadian to demand better — from their government, from their courts, and from their country.
We cannot allow this to stand. The Supreme Court’s refusal to hear these cases damages not just the legal system but the very fabric of Canadian democracy. This is not the end of the fight; it is only the beginning. The question remains: will Canada continue down this path of unchecked government overreach, or will the people rise up to reclaim their rights?
One thing is clear: the stakes have never been higher. We must hold our leaders and our courts accountable. Freedom is not just a word — it’s a way of life. And it’s a way of life that’s worth fighting for.
For the full experience subscribe to The Opposition with Dan Knight .
COVID-19
Court compels RCMP and TD Bank to hand over records related to freezing of peaceful protestor’s bank accounts
The Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms announces that a judge of the Ontario Court of Justice has ordered the RCMP and TD Bank to produce records relating to the freezing of Mr. Evan Blackman’s bank accounts during the 2022 Freedom Convoy protest.
Mr. Blackman was arrested in downtown Ottawa on February 18, 2022, during the federal government’s unprecedented use of the Emergencies Act. He was charged with mischief and obstruction, but he was acquitted of these charges at trial in October 2023.
However, the Crown appealed Mr. Blackman’s acquittal in 2024, and a new trial is scheduled to begin on August 14, 2025.
Mr. Blackman is seeking the records concerning the freezing of his bank accounts to support an application under the Charter at his upcoming retrial.
His lawyers plan to argue that the freezing of his bank accounts was a serious violation of his rights, and are asking the court to stay the case accordingly.
“The freezing of Mr. Blackman’s bank accounts was an extreme overreach on the part of the police and the federal government,” says constitutional lawyer Chris Fleury.
“These records will hopefully reveal exactly how and why Mr. Blackman’s accounts were frozen,” he says.
Mr. Blackman agreed, saying, “I’m delighted that we will finally get records that may reveal why my bank accounts were frozen.”
This ruling marks a significant step in what is believed to be the first criminal case in Canada involving a proposed Charter application based on the freezing of personal bank accounts under the Emergencies Act.
Chris Carbert (right) and Anthony Olienick, two of the Coutts Four were jailed for over two years for mischief and unlawful possession of a firearm for a dangerous purpose.
From LifeSiteNews
The “Coutts Four” were painted as dangerous terrorists and their arrest was used as justification for the invocation of the Emergencies Act by the Trudeau government, which allowed it to use draconian measures to end both the Coutts blockade and the much larger Freedom Convoy
COVID protestor Chris Carbert has been granted bail pending his appeal after spending over two years in prison.
On June 30, Alberta Court of Appeal Justice Jo-Anne Strekaf ordered the release of Chris Carbert pending his appeal of charges of mischief and weapons offenses stemming from the Coutts border blockade, which protested COVID mandates in 2022.
“[Carbert] has demonstrated that there is no substantial likelihood that he will commit a criminal offence or interfere with the administration of justice if released from detention pending the hearing of his appeals,” Strekaf ruled.
“If the applicant and the Crown are able to agree upon a release plan and draft order to propose to the court, that is to be submitted by July 14,” she continued.
Carbert’s appeal is expected to be heard in September. So far, Carbert has spent over two years in prison, when he was charged with conspiracy to commit murder during the protest in Coutts, which ran parallel to but was not officially affiliated with the Freedom Convoy taking place in Ottawa.
Later, he was acquitted of the conspiracy to commit murder charge but still found guilty of the lesser charges of unlawful possession of a firearm for a dangerous purpose and mischief over $5,000.
In September 2024, Chris Carbert was sentenced to six and a half years for his role in the protest. However, he is not expected to serve his full sentence, as he was issued four years of credit for time already served. Carbert is also prohibited from owning firearms for life and required to provide a DNA sample.
Carbert was arrested alongside Anthony Olienick, Christopher Lysak and Jerry Morin, with the latter two pleading guilty to lesser charges to avoid trial. At the time, the “Coutts Four” were painted as dangerous terrorists and their arrest was used as justification for the invocation of the Emergencies Act by the Trudeau government, which allowed it to use draconian measures to end both the Coutts blockade and the much larger Freedom Convoy occurring thousands of kilometers away in Ottawa.
Under the Emergency Act (EA), the Liberal government froze the bank accounts of Canadians who donated to the Freedom Convoy. Trudeau revoked the EA on February 23 after the protesters had been cleared out. At the time, seven of Canada’s 10 provinces opposed Trudeau’s use of the EA.
Since then, Federal Court Justice Richard Mosley ruled that Trudeau was “not justified” in invoking the Emergencies Act, a decision that the federal government is appealing.
Elon Musk slams Trump’s ‘Big Beautiful Bill,’ calls for new political party
RFK Jr. Unloads Disturbing Vaccine Secrets on Tucker—And Surprises Everyone on Trump
Canada Caves: Carney ditches digital services tax after criticism from Trump
National Health Care Fraud Takedown Results in 324 Defendants Charged in Connection with Over $14.6 Billion in Alleged Fraud
RFK Jr. says Hep B vaccine is linked to 1,135% higher autism rate
Alberta Independence Seekers Take First Step: Citizen Initiative Application Approved, Notice of Initiative Petition Issued
Alberta judge sides with LGBT activists, allows ‘gender transitions’ for kids to continue
-
Business1 day agoDallas mayor invites NYers to first ‘sanctuary city from socialism’
-
COVID-192 days ago
Court compels RCMP and TD Bank to hand over records related to freezing of peaceful protestor’s bank accounts
-
C2C Journal2 days agoCanada Desperately Needs a Baby Bump
-
Agriculture1 day agoLacombe meat processor scores $1.2 million dollar provincial tax credit to help expansion
-
Alberta Sports Hall of Fame and Museum1 day agoAlberta Sports Hall of Fame 2025 Inductee profiles – Alpine Skiing Athlete – Brady Leman
-
Crime1 day agoThe Left Thinks Drug Criminalization Is Racist. Minorities Disagree
-
Business2 days agoNational dental program likely more costly than advertised
-
Energy2 days agoB.C. Residents File Competition Bureau Complaint Against David Suzuki Foundation for Use of False Imagery in Anti-Energy Campaigns