A proposed $300 million class action lawsuit brought against convoy protesters, donors and organizers on behalf of people who live or work in Ottawa is facing new challenges, lawyers say. The lawsuit alleges that it seeks to unreasonably limit fundamental freedoms.
High Court Judge Callum MacLeod on Thursday heard arguments for and against a motion brought under the Anti-SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation) Act.
This law helps protect people from persistent lawsuits brought to silence dissent through legal and financial threats.
In January 2022, people arrived in Ottawa to protest demanding that all COVID-19 restrictions be lifted. Protests continued for several weeks and prompted the federal government to invoke emergency legislation.
“Everything here, every expression here, is political expression, and of course it has a negative impact on our society,” said attorney James Manson, who is representing protest organizers Tamara Rich and Chris Barber. It is of fundamental importance to the
“All of that has to be very, very, very protected by the courts.”
He, along with organizer Patrick King’s attorney Shelly Overwater, argued that what became known as the Freedom Convoy represented an important public debate.
But Paul Champ, the lawyer filing the class action suit, insisted that was “not what’s at stake here.”
“It’s about honking your horn. It’s about parking on the street for weeks on end, even on protest afternoons and weekends. And it’s about letting semi-tractor trucks idle for long periods of time, spewing diesel fumes next to homes. .”
Disputed details
The judge’s decision will likely weigh the intentions behind the protests and their impact.
Zexy Lee, a public servant who fought to have the horns stopped and became a prominent figure in the case, has been involved in several lawsuits, including Union Local 613, Happy Goat Coffee Company, and a local server named Jeffrey Devaney. They are standing side by side on the front lines of litigation.
The case has not yet reached the certification stage, but Champ said thousands of people have expressed interest.
The civil arguments center around allegations of nuisance behavior and are proceeding in parallel with various criminal cases alleging mischief and obstruction of police by organizers.
The day’s discussion focused on both the mechanics of protests and their impact.
Manson did not dispute that truck drivers gathered in protest, honking their horns and sometimes idling their cars. But he denied that these activities were part of a “master plan” to cause distress to people living downtown.
“That’s what we’re concerned about,” he said. “No one can deny that there were a lot of vehicles on the road. Is it impassable? I think you can dispute that.”
He also argued that the plaintiffs could not prove their claims that the truck was idling 24 hours a day, that they were harmed by the constant honking, or that they were engaged in protest work. .
The judge himself outlined how the case would proceed along these lines.
“Even though we have speech protection, do we have the right to engage in a variety of other activities in its name without consequences?” McLeod said. “What is reasonable when it comes to private nuisance?”
Plaintiffs argue there’s no need to chill out donors
Champ argued that it’s difficult to discuss anti-SLAPP motions without acknowledging what protesters specifically did when they took to the streets, and Manson should not move forward with his lawsuit without evidence. he claimed.
The affidavits collected touch on a number of potential impacts of the protests, including hearing damage, business losses and health risks from diesel exhaust.
According to Manson, all of that is too speculative.
However, MacLeod pointed out that this type of claim does not require the plaintiff to provide all the evidence upfront. All that is needed is “an example of the type of evidence” that could be gathered if the case were to proceed, he said.
Manson spent a lot of time arguing that in order for all the different categories of defendants (protesters, organizers, donors) to be held responsible for the nuisance, there must be a common plan to commit the crime. he claimed.
Of particular concern concerns those who have donated to political causes, with Manson saying the ruling against them would have a “serious chilling effect” on those who might consider donating to future protests. He said it would bring.
“Who would donate money to a cause, knowing that they could be held accountable for some unspecified blanket liability for something they don’t remember happening at a protest?” Manson said. . “I won’t. Will you?”
Champ argued that the class action lawsuit only involves people who donated after GoFundMe accounts were suspended, and said the company provided evidence that law enforcement “previously peaceful demonstrations have become a profession.” .
Champ said people should have known what was going on at that point. He added that the court should not consider how a loss in the class action lawsuit would affect future protests.
Mr MacLeod will now consider whether to allow the case to proceed to the next stage. He deferred his decision to a later date.
