New trial ordered for convoy protester acquitted of mischief, obstructing police

Article content

A judge has rejected the acquittal of a man charged with mischief and obstructing police during the police action in February 2022 to end the “Freedom Convoy” blockade of downtown Ottawa.

Instead, Evan Blackman is to face trial for a second time on his actions on Feb. 18, 2022, the day hundreds of police officers from Ontario and Quebec began clearing protesters who had occupied the city core for three weeks.

Article content

In his decision, Ontario Superior Court Justice Kevin Phillips ruled the judge at Blackman’s brief October 2023 trial ignored essential elements of the prosecution’s case, while placing emphasis on non-essential details. While lauding the trial judge as “admirably efficient” — the judge delivered his verdict immediately after a short recess following submissions — Phillips ruled the acquittal “cannot stand.”

Evidence at the original trial consisted of a 14-minute overhead video from a police drone and the testimony from the arresting officer.

On the frigid Friday morning, police in crowd control gear, backed by officers on horses, stood in line across Colonel By Drive squared off again a crowd of protesters. (Phillips’ written ruling said this occurred on Feb. 18, 2021, but the date was actually Feb. 18, 2022).

“For a long while the two sides stand facing each other,” Phillips wrote. “The police maintain a rigid line, basically across Colonel By parallel to Rideau Street. The protesters hold to the same line, interacting disagreeably with the police, and by the gestures of many one can tell that emotions are escalating. Several at the front have their arms interlocked. Some are hugging in clusters of twos and threes as if something meaningful is about to happen.”

Article content

When police began advancing, Blackman and several other demonstrators stepped out in front of them and knelt on the ground. Blackman began singing O Canada as the police approached.

The judge at the original trial ruled the Blackman may not have known that the protesters had been ordered to leave and therefore might not have known he was obstructing their duty.

Phillips rejected that.

“What communications the police managed to get through to Mr. Blackman was not the point. His kneeling on its own could constitute as an act to obstruct the police. The trial judge had to consider whether Mr. Blackman could have been at least wilfully blind about what the police were doing and that his kneeling could have been intended by him to make the police job harder,” Phillips wrote.

“By kneeling, as here, a person takes his legs out of commission, rendering himself non-ambulatory. Mr. Blackman arguably wished to convert his body into an obstacle for the police to have to work around, to perhaps have to move with lifting-force rather than be ushered along with words.”

Phillips rejected the mischief acquittal because the trial judge didn’t explain his reasoning.

Article content

While brevity is to be applauded in a busy and backlogged court system, “at the same time, however, reasons must disclose, even in a basic way, the thought process through which the result was arrived at,” Phillips wrote.

“No trial judge is obliged to articulate thoughts about every issue that came up or could be imagined. In this case, however, the issue of party liability was central to the prosecution’s argument and deserved at least some kind of mention.”

Blackman was represented at the hearing by lawyer Chris Fleury. In an article published in advance of the hearing by the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedom, Fleury said that if the acquittal was overturned he intended to apply for a stay of proceedings. Blackman pleaded not guilty at the original trial.

Article content