The Supreme Court of Canada announced on Thursday that it will review an appeal regarding a 2024 Federal Court ruling that determined the former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s government had violated the Charter rights of participants in a convoy when it implemented the Emergencies Act in 2022.
Following the initial ruling, the federal government appealed to the Federal Court of Appeal, which in January 2026 upheld the lower court’s decision. The Federal Court of Appeal agreed with Federal Court Justice Richard Mosley’s 2024 ruling, stating that the Liberal cabinet lacked reasonable grounds to believe the convoy protest posed a national security threat, thus failing to meet the necessary legal threshold for invoking the act.
Despite acknowledging the disruptive nature of the blockades and convoy protests in Ottawa, the three judges at the Federal Court of Appeal emphasized that they did not constitute a national security threat. Consequently, the federal government sought permission to appeal the case to the Supreme Court, which has now agreed to hear it.
In 2022, a protest primarily against vaccine mandates drew thousands of individuals, including truckers, to the capital for an extended period. In response to the protesters occupying Ottawa and border crossings, including the Ambassador Bridge in Windsor, the Liberal government invoked the Emergencies Act on February 14, 2022. This invocation granted law enforcement additional powers to disperse and detain protesters, as well as enabling the government to freeze the assets of those associated with the demonstrations.
Notably, this was the first time the Emergencies Act had been invoked since its introduction in 1988, replacing the War Measures Act.
A commission in 2023, overseen by Commissioner Paul Rouleau, conducted a mandatory inquiry into the government’s activation of the Emergencies Act. The commission’s findings differed from subsequent legal challenges, with Rouleau asserting that the federal government had met the rigorous criteria necessary for invoking the act. He attributed this decision to deficiencies in policing and federal coordination, albeit expressing some reservations about his conclusion.
Commissioner Rouleau, a justice at the Ontario Court of Appeal, highlighted the challenging nature of his decision, stating that the factual basis supporting it was not overwhelmingly compelling.
