Summary of "Emergencies Act Deemed Illegal | Christine Van Geyn and Jimmy Connor"

Guest and organization

Christine van Geyn — Legal Director, Canadian Constitution Foundation (CCF) The CCF is a national legal charity focused on civil liberties. It brings constitutional lawsuits, intervenes as a friend of the court, and provides public legal education.

Court: Federal Court of Appeal (unanimous ruling)
Subject: Federal government’s February 2022 invocation of the Emergencies Act in response to the “Freedom Convoy” protests in Ottawa.
Outcome: The court found the invocation unlawful, concluding the government failed to meet the three core statutory threshold requirements.

The court examined the three statutory requirements built into the Emergencies Act and found the government failed each:

Threat to the security of Canada
- The government could not demonstrate the protests met the statute’s “serious violence” standard.
- Economic harm was not an adequate substitute for the required statutory threshold.
Provincial capacity / national emergency
- Cabinet did not properly engage with or justify provincial input.
- Only Ontario, Newfoundland and Labrador, and British Columbia gave limited support.
- The government did not show that provinces’ capacity to respond was exceeded.
Last-resort clause (exhaustion of existing federal tools)
- The court accepted evidence that ordinary police and criminal-law tools remained available.
- Those ordinary tools were ultimately used to clear blockades, so extraordinary powers were not necessary.

The Emergencies Act regulations required banks and financial institutions to freeze and disclose accounts of broadly defined “designated persons” without warrants, notice, or meaningful challenge mechanisms.
Banks were effectively deputized; police advised them to rely on media and social platforms to identify suspects.
The court found these financial measures violated Charter protections against unreasonable search and seizure.

Regulations criminalized attendance at gatherings where a breach of the peace “might” occur.
The provision was sweeping and could have penalized peaceful protesters, supporters, or bystanders.
Penalties included sentences up to five years.
The court held this unjustifiably infringed freedom of expression and freedom of assembly.

Ordinary criminal charges under the Criminal Code (e.g., mischief, weapons or firearms offenses) are not automatically invalidated by the decision.
Individuals harmed by frozen accounts, asset seizures, or problematic arrests can pursue civil damages; the ruling strengthens those constitutional claims.
Many affected individuals have already initiated civil lawsuits.

The federal government has 60 days to seek leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada; an appeal is possible and likely.
Costs so far: at least CA$2.2 million in the lower court, plus additional private counsel fees at the court of appeal; further appeal would increase expenditures.
Precedent: The ruling limits future use of the Emergencies Act, restoring its narrow, exceptional application intended to prevent abuses like those associated with the War Measures Act.

Personal legal accountability for politicians is rare for official acts; most accountability is reputational and political rather than personal legal liability.
The summary referenced public figures (for example, Mark Carney) who publicly urged cutting off funding to the protest. Internal government notes showed some contact, though Carney was a private citizen when he published his op‑ed.