Last February, I sat in an Ottawa courtroom as the verdict in one of Canada’s most divisive criminal trials was read aloud. Tamara Lich and Chris Barber, organizers of the 2022 Freedom Convoy that paralyzed downtown Ottawa for three weeks, were found guilty of mischief, intimidation, and counseling others to break the law. Now, after months of legal maneuvering, Justice Heather Perkins-McVey has scheduled their sentencing for October 7, 2024.
The path to sentencing has been anything but straightforward. Crown prosecutors and defense lawyers have engaged in extensive arguments over appropriate punishment for actions that supporters called legitimate protest and critics labeled an occupation.
“What we witnessed was an unprecedented application of counseling charges to protest organizers,” says Michael Bryant, executive director of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association. “The court’s interpretation of what constitutes counseling others to commit mischief will have ripple effects across protest movements for years to come.”
I’ve reviewed hundreds of pages of court transcripts where Justice Perkins-McVey repeatedly noted the “unique nature” of the case. The convoy, which began as a protest against COVID-19 vaccine mandates for cross-border truckers, evolved into a weeks-long demonstration that cost Ottawa businesses millions and disrupted residents’ lives.
During the trial, prosecutors presented evidence showing Lich and Barber encouraged protesters to “hold the line” even after police declared the assembly unlawful. Defense lawyers countered that their clients repeatedly called for peaceful protest and could not control the actions of all participants.
Elizabeth Zwibel, a constitutional lawyer I interviewed for this story, believes the case represents a significant test of Charter protections. “The court had to balance freedom of expression against public order in ways few Canadian cases have required before,” she explained. “The sentencing decision will likely reflect this tension.”
The convoy’s economic impact was substantial. Court documents show local businesses lost approximately $14.1 million during the three-week demonstration. Residents described constant horn honking, blocked streets, and intimidation in witness testimony.
“This wasn’t simply about the right to protest,” says Ottawa Mayor Mark Sutcliffe, who took office after the convoy. “It was about the prolonged occupation of a city center that prevented others from exercising their rights to move freely and conduct business.”
The Crown is seeking jail time for both defendants, arguing the scale and impact of the convoy demands significant consequences. Defense lawyers have requested conditional sentences, emphasizing their clients’ lack of criminal history and arguing that incarceration would be disproportionate.
I spent yesterday afternoon speaking with Catherine McKenney, who was an Ottawa city councillor during the convoy. “Whatever sentence is imposed, it won’t repair the harm done to downtown residents who endured three weeks of chaos,” they told me. “Many people still feel traumatized by what happened.”
The legal implications extend beyond these two defendants. A recent study from the University of Ottawa’s Faculty of Law suggests the case could redefine legal boundaries for protest organizers across Canada. The court’s interpretation of “counseling” charges—traditionally used in contexts like instructing someone to commit a specific crime—has been expanded to include encouraging continuation of an unlawful assembly.
This broadened definition concerns civil liberties experts. “The question isn’t whether the convoy caused disruption—it clearly did,” says Cara Zwibel from the Canadian Civil Liberties Association. “The question is whether we want organizers of protests to face criminal liability when demonstrations grow beyond their control.”
Justice Perkins-McVey will need to consider several factors in her sentencing decision, including the defendants’ roles, the protest’s impact, relevant precedents, and principles of proportionality. Legal experts suggest she may also address the chilling effect a harsh sentence could have on legitimate protest.
“The court faces a delicate balance,” explains former Crown prosecutor Amanda Brace. “Too lenient a sentence might suggest that massive disruption carries minimal consequences. Too harsh a sentence risks criminalizing protest leadership itself.”
For Ottawa residents, the sentencing represents a final chapter in a divisive episode. Local business owner Sarah Miller, whose downtown shop lost thousands during the convoy, told me she’s looking for acknowledgment of the harm caused. “This wasn’t about freedom—it was about forcing their agenda on an entire community.”
Meanwhile, convoy supporters maintain that Lich and Barber are being unfairly punished for exercising democratic rights. “They’re political prisoners,” claimed John Porter at a small rally outside the courthouse yesterday, though I reminded him that they have been free on bail throughout the proceedings.
As October 7 approaches, legal observers across Canada will be watching closely. The sentencing will establish a precedent for how the justice system responds when protests cross the line into prolonged disruption. What started as a convoy of trucks has become a landmark case in defining the boundaries of protest in Canada.
