Appeal court rules 2022 use of Emergencies Act to end convoy protests was unjustified
The Federal Court of Appeal found the 2022 invocation of the Emergencies Act was not legally justified and breached Charter rights. Ottawa may seek Supreme Court review.
Copy link
By Torontoer Staff
The Federal Court of Appeal has ruled the federal government’s 2022 decision to invoke the Emergencies Act to end the Ottawa convoy protests was not legally justified. A three-judge panel unanimously upheld a prior Federal Court ruling that the blockades, while disruptive, did not amount to a national emergency under the Act.
The judgment also concluded the use of the Act infringed Charter protections for freedom of expression and protection against unreasonable search and seizure. The federal government has the option of seeking leave to appeal to the Supreme Court by mid-March.
What the court said
The appeal court agreed with the Federal Court’s finding that the protests were "disturbing and disruptive," but that they "fell well short of a threat to national security." The government, the court said, failed to show reasonable grounds that a threat to Canada’s security or a national emergency existed within the meaning of the Emergencies Act.
They fell well short of a threat to national security.
Federal Court of Appeal
The panel reiterated that Parliament deliberately set a high bar for the Act when it replaced the War Measures Act in 1988. Two courts have now concluded that the federal government did not meet that strict standard in early 2022.
What powers were invoked and why
On Feb. 14, 2022, the federal government cited a threat to Canada’s security and invoked the Emergencies Act. The temporary measures authorised financial measures such as freezing bank accounts linked to the protests, and prohibited certain public assemblies. The government said the measures were needed to restore public order after weeks of blockades and horn-blaring that paralysed parts of central Ottawa and affected some border crossings.
How courts say the situation could have been handled
Both the Federal Court and the appeal court reviewed alternatives to emergency powers. The judgments note that provincial authorities and existing criminal and municipal laws could have been used more aggressively to clear blockades. Courts also referenced the option of deploying additional police resources to dismantle obstructive demonstrations without resorting to the Emergencies Act.
Reactions from civil liberties groups and politicians
Organisations that challenged the use of the Act framed the ruling as a legal safeguard. The Canadian Constitution Foundation said the decision sends a strong message about executive limits. The Canadian Civil Liberties Association described the judgment as strengthening the Act, by clarifying that it applies only to clear national emergencies.
It’s not an exaggeration to say this decision is about the principles of democracy.
Joanna Baron, Canadian Constitution Foundation
If it is used, we will be truly facing a national emergency.
Howard Sapers, Canadian Civil Liberties Association
Conservative MP Michelle Rempel Garner said the ruling underscores how the Act’s use undermined trust in government to protect civil liberties. The federal government said it is assessing next steps, and emphasised its commitment to safety and security when faced with threats to public safety.
Inquiry, earlier court rulings and judicial commentary
A public inquiry led by Justice Paul Rouleau concluded in February 2023 that invoking the Act was understandable but might have been avoided. In January 2024, Federal Court Justice Richard Mosley found Ottawa’s decision lacked the hallmarks of reasonableness. The appeal court has now affirmed those findings.
The legal record around the protests also included commentary from senior jurists and a complaint to the Canadian Judicial Council about statements from the Chief Justice of Canada in 2022. The council dismissed the complaint as without substance.
What happens next
The federal government may apply for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court by the mid-March deadline. The Supreme Court accepts a small number of appeals, but cases that raise complex questions of public law, such as the proper scope and application of the Emergencies Act, are sometimes taken up.
- Two courts concluded the 2022 invocation did not meet the Emergencies Act’s high threshold for a national emergency.
- The appeal court found the measures infringed freedom of expression and protection against unreasonable search and seizure.
- Judges said provincial powers and existing laws could have been used to address the blockades.
- The federal government may seek Supreme Court review by mid-March.
The Federal Court of Appeal’s decision is significant because it clarifies limits on executive power in crisis situations and underscores the need for clear legal grounds before extraordinary measures are used. The ruling leaves open the possibility of final review by the Supreme Court, and adds a major chapter to Canadian public-law precedent.
Emergencies ActFederal Court of AppealCivil libertiesOttawa convoyLegal
