Lich, Barber Freedom Convoy trial nears verdict: A side-by-side of the crown vs. defence cases

The crown is calling for conviction while defence argues protestors were following orders

Crown attorneys Tim Radcliffe and Siobhain Wetscher said they had an “overwhelming” case for convicting the two accused convoy leaders on each of the criminal counts they face: mischief, intimidation, obstructing police and counselling others at the demonstration to commit the same offences.

Diane Magas, left, lawyer for Chris Barber, centre, walks with Lawrence Greenspon, centre, lawyer for Tamara Lich, not shown, as they return to the courthouse in Ottawa.
Diane Magas, left, lawyer for Chris Barber, centre, walks with Lawrence Greenspon, centre, lawyer for Tamara Lich, not shown, as they return to the courthouse in Ottawa.Photo by Justin Tang /THE CANADIAN PRESS

Lich’s defence lawyers, Lawrence Greenspon and Eric Granger, and Barber’s defence team of Diane Magas and Marwa Younes, argued their clients were welcomed into the downtown core by Ottawa police, they worked with city officials to reduce the protest’s “footprint” and co-operated with police throughout the three-week demonstration.

When will this come to an end? Perkins-McVey indicated she would deliver her verdict sometime within the next six months, though she hoped it wouldn’t take nearly that long. Until then, here’s a closer look at each charge against Lich and Barber, and what the prosecution and defence are saying to make their case.

The Case for Mischief

Click a card for more on each side’s position.

The Case for Intimidation

Click a card for more on each side’s position.

The Case for Obstruction

Click a card for more on each side’s position.

The Case for Counselling

Click a card for more on each side’s position.

The Charter vs. the Criminal Code

The Crown has insisted that Lich and Barber “are not on trial for their political beliefs, but for the means they employed to meet their end — to compel the federal government to end COVID-19 mandates.”

The noise, fumes, traffic congestion and gridlock, the scale and duration of the demonstration, along with the harassment residents faced, all put the convoy “outside the spectrum of what could be considered a lawful protest,” Wetscher said during closing arguments.

“It’s all about group pressure,” said Radcliffe, with Lich and Barber acting as “primary principals” and “metaphorically standing shoulder-to-shoulder with those on the ground, exerting pressure on the residents of downtown Ottawa by virtue of the weight and mass of those trucks, the decibels of those horns… to achieve a public policy end.

“It is the Crown’s position that they went too far.”

In his reply, Greenspon said the temporary interference with the lives of downtown residents “was admitted from the get-go.”

That interference was resolved early on, Greenspon said, with the Feb. 7, 2022 injunction from Superior Court Justice Hugh McLean, which was reaffirmed ten days later on Feb. 16 — the day before Lich and Barber were arrested.

While the court injunction barred truckers from blaring their horns, the court order also specified that protesters were allowed to remain in Ottawa’s downtown to partake in a “peaceful, lawful and safe” demonstration.

“From the Crown’s perspective, freedom of expression and freedom of peaceful assembly — although constitutionally-entrenched and protected as fundamental freedoms — are to take a back seat to the enjoyment of property,” said Greenspon.

“We say: not so.”

Related Posts


This will close in 0 seconds