The Ontario Court of Appeal has ruled in favor of advancing a $290 million lawsuit targeting Freedom Convoy participants

The Ontario Court of Appeal has dismissed an appeal from defendants in a class action lawsuit tied to the 2022 Freedom Convoy protest in Ottawa. The decision, released on March 6, 2025, upholds a lower court’s rejection of a motion to dismiss the case under Ontario’s anti-SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation) legislation. This allows the lawsuit to proceed to its next phase, potentially certification as a class action.

The lawsuit stems from the Freedom Convoy protest, which began on January 28, 2022, and lasted about three weeks in downtown Ottawa. Truckers and supporters gathered to oppose COVID-19 public health measures, parking trucks on public streets and causing frequent horn honking and engine idling, according to reports. The plaintiffs claim this disrupted residents, businesses, and employees in the area. Zexi Li, an Ottawa resident, filed the initial claim on February 4, 2022, which later expanded to include Happy Goat Coffee Company, 7983794 Canada Inc. (operating as Union: Local 613), and Geoffrey Devaney, representing affected residents, businesses, and employees.

Named defendants include individuals such as Chris Barber, Tamara Lich, and Patrick King, identified by the plaintiffs as key organizers, along with other participants, truckers, and donors accused of supporting the protest. The plaintiffs seek $290 million in damages for private and public nuisance, including $60 million for general damages, $70 million for business losses, $150 million for lost wages, and $10 million in punitive damages.

Several defendants, including Barber, Lich, and others, sought to dismiss the lawsuit under section 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act, a provision that allows courts to end proceedings limiting expression on matters of public interest. They argued their convoy involvement was political expression protected by this law and that the lawsuit aimed to suppress their rights. On February 5, 2024, Justice Calum MacLeod dismissed the motion, concluding the plaintiffs met the legal threshold to proceed. The defendants appealed, asserting the motion judge erred in assessing the case’s merit, their proposed defenses, and the balance of public interest.

The appeal was heard on October 28, 2024, by Justices Peter Lauwers, David Brown, and Steve A. Coroza. In a unanimous decision written by Justice Brown, the Court of Appeal upheld the lower court’s ruling, addressing the defendants’ main arguments. The court reviewed evidence suggesting the defendants may have acted together to disrupt Ottawa’s downtown through street blockades, horn honking, and engine idling. This evidence included affidavits from residents and businesses, expert reports estimating economic losses, and findings from the Public Inquiry into the 2022 Public Order Emergency (Rouleau Report). Although the defendants denied a coordinated plan, the court found enough evidence to suggest the claims had a “real prospect of success” under section 137.1, without fully deciding their validity at this stage.

For claims against donors, represented by Brad Howland, the court noted that most funds raised were refunded or held in escrow, complicating liability questions. It deemed it premature to rule on this group, deferring the issue to a future certification motion. On the public nuisance claims, the defendants argued the plaintiffs lacked evidence of “special damages” unique to them. The court cited prior rulings and evidence of specific harm within the protest zone, finding it sufficient for this preliminary stage.

The defendants also raised defenses, including compliance with police directions under the Highway Traffic Act. The court found no evidence that police directed the prolonged parking, horn honking, or idling central to the claims, suggesting this defense may not hold. While the motion judge’s wording of the “no valid defense” test differed from Supreme Court precedent, the Court of Appeal concluded it did not alter the legal standard, which requires plaintiffs to show defenses lack a real prospect of success.

Section 137.1(4)(b) requires weighing harm to the plaintiffs against the public interest in protecting expression. The court recognized the convoy as political expression but highlighted evidence of disruption to residents and businesses. It determined that the legal questions—balancing protest rights with community impacts—warranted further judicial review, affirming the motion judge’s decision to let the case proceed.

This ruling does not resolve the lawsuit but permits it to advance, likely to a certification motion under the Class Proceedings Act, 1992. That step will determine if the case can proceed as a class action and clarify the scope of plaintiff and defendant classes. The court emphasized that section 137.1 serves as a screening tool, not a final judgment, reserving deeper factual disputes for later stages.