The Liberals are challenging two lower court rulings that found Justin Trudeau's government acted unconstitutionally when it invoked the Emergencies Act in response to the 2022 Freedom Convoy protest.

Federal Court Justice Richard Mosely first found the Trudeau Liberals violated Canadians' Charter rights through the unreasonable use of the country's most severe legal action.

The feds then took that ruling to the Federal Court of Appeal, where a panel of judges then backed Mosley's ruling. Now, the government is taking the case to the Supreme Court in one last attempt to overturn the decision.

On Wednesday's Buffalo Roundtable, hosts Drea Humphrey and Lise Merle, alongside guests Marc Nixon and Chris Dacey, shared their thoughts on the matter making its way before Canada's highest court.

“The reason I believe they're doing it is because Mark Carney was the economic adviser and also provided his two cents in saying 'yes, let's proceed with this,'” political commentator Marc Nixon said, slamming the Liberals for taking the issue to a third court after being slapped down twice.

Carney's “hands are dirty with this,” Marc said, adding the prime minister needs “this to go away” so the Emergencies Act could possibly be used in the future.

Go Ad Free

Lise agreed, calling Carney “complicit” in the Trudeau government's use of the act, recalling the op-ed he wrote at the time calling the anti-mandate protest the “beginning [of] anarchy” and accusing protesters and their donors of “sedition.”

“This is what the government always does,” independent journalist Chris Dacey said of the government filing an appeal on the last possible day to do so. “Carney is one of the only people intimately involved that is still around,” he said, noting much of Trudeau's cabinet is no longer in the government.

Chris also highlighted a potential conflict of interest in the Supreme Court's hearing of the case, given Chief Justice Richard Wagner's public condemnation of the peaceful protest. “If you're bumping it up to a friendly Supreme Court, there's a better chance they'll rule in your favour,” he added.

“My hope is that they don't even see this case through,” said Drea, who called on the Supreme Court to decline to take on the case. Drea also blasted the government for “the amount of tax dollars being wasted to go against the people.”

Years later, and despite two rulings against its use, “the government still isn't apologizing, still isn't having that conversation, and is taking it to the highest court — trying to anyways,” she said.

“I don't have a whole lot of faith left,” replied Lise. “But you know ... the Supreme Court could do us all a solid and surprise us.”