The Record.
A documented, sourced record of what was done — by all parties — during and after the 2022 Ottawa convoy, so it can’t be quietly erased. The official justifications and the documented findings, side by side, with the real records.
Findings against the government — at a glance
Every adverse finding an official body has formally made against the government over the Emergencies Act invocation, finding-by-finding, each tied to its primary source — with the government’s own position recorded beside it. The findings are stated in the courts’ own terms.
FindingThe invocation of the Emergencies Act was unreasonable and ultra vires — beyond the government’s legal authority — and infringed the Charter: freedom of expression (s. 2(b)) and the right against unreasonable search and seizure (s. 8), with neither breach justified under s. 1.
Federal Court, Justice Richard Mosley, in Canadian Frontline Nurses v. Canada (AG), 2024 FC 42.
Government’s positionThe government disagrees and appealed.
2024 FC 42 (decision) ↗FindingThe appeal was dismissed: the invocation was unreasonable and ultra vires; the government did not show reasonable grounds to believe a “threat to the security of Canada” — the Act’s borrowed CSIS-Act definition, which CSIS itself assessed was not met — or a national emergency within the meaning of the Act existed; and it had not shown existing laws were insufficient to deal with the situation.
Federal Court of Appeal, unanimously upholding 2024 FC 42, in 2026 FCA 6.
Government’s positionThe government disagrees and has applied for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada; that application is pending as of June 19, 2026.
2026 FCA 6 (summary) ↗FindingThe account-freezing power — the Emergency Economic Measures Order’s freezing of bank accounts and disclosure of financial information without prior authorization by a neutral arbiter — was an unreasonable “seizure” under Charter s. 8, not saved under s. 1. Found by the Federal Court and upheld on appeal.
Federal Court, 2024 FC 42 (Mosley J.), upheld by the Federal Court of Appeal in 2026 FCA 6. The s. 8 breach attaches specifically to the economic / bank-account-freezing measures.
Government’s positionThe government disagrees; the leave application to the Supreme Court is pending as of June 19, 2026.
2026 FCA 6 (summary) ↗Still undecided One Charter question was left open: whether the orders also breached s. 2(c), freedom of peaceful assembly. The Court of Appeal declined to decide it, so it stays live if the Supreme Court takes the case. The findings above are what has been formally decided as of June 19, 2026.
How to read this
This archive has to be credible to readers on both sides. So it holds itself to one standard, stated here in the open — measure every page against it.
Evidence-first
Every factual claim is tied to a primary or reputable source — court decisions, inquiry exhibits and reports, official orders and statements, or multiple mainstream outlets. The documents are linked so you can check them yourself.
Fact vs. allegation vs. finding
We distinguish what is established fact, what is an allegation, and what an official body has formally found. An allegation is never presented as settled fact, and where something is disputed or unresolved, we say so.
Both sides, steelmanned
Each item carries the official justification and the documented criticism or finding — the government and police rationale alongside the court rulings, inquiry conclusions, and complaint outcomes.
Restrained, neutral language
No partisan adjectives, no spin. The documented facts and the citations carry the weight. A reader who disagrees politically should still concede the page is fair and accurate.
The record, by section
Each section sets out the official justification and the documented criticism or finding, and ends with the primary documents behind every claim. Grouped into three clusters below — start anywhere.
The measures governments reached for — the Emergencies Act, the public-health mandates, and the freezing of money.
What happened on the ground and how it landed in the legal system — the clearing, the border blockades, and the prosecutions.
How the funds were stopped and how the story was carried — the platforms, the payments, and the press.
Sources, methodology & how to cite
The standard, stated for the record. The point is that you do not have to take this site’s word for anything — the primary documents are linked, and they govern.
Primary documents are authoritative
This site is a finding aid, not the source of truth. The authoritative records are the court decisions, inquiry exhibits and reports, official orders and statements, and contemporaneous reporting — each linked on the relevant section page. Where this site and a primary document differ, the primary document governs.
Evidence-first, labelled
Every claim is tied to a source and labelled as established fact, allegation, or formal finding. Allegations are never presented as settled fact; official findings are stated plainly, in the courts’ and inquiry’s own terms.
“Reviewed as of” dates
Each page carries the date it was last reviewed for accuracy, shown near its top. The hub was reviewed and is current as of June 19, 2026. These dates let you see how current any page is.
Corrections as the record develops
The record is still being written — appeals are pending and reviews are ongoing. Pages are corrected and updated as primary documents are released or superseded, with figures kept consistent across the archive.
How to cite: cite the underlying primary document — for example, Canadian Frontline Nurses v. Canada (AG), 2024 FC 42, or 2026 FCA 6 — not this page. Where this site is referenced directly, note the “reviewed as of” date for the page you used, as the record is updated as it develops.
Spotted an error — or have footage or a document we’re missing? This record is corrected as it develops, and we weigh every correction against the primary sources. Tell us at [email protected].
Why this matters
The events of 2021 and 2022 were judged differently by different bodies — and some of those judgments are still being written. Inquiries reached one conclusion; courts reached another; complaints and reviews are ongoing. Memory of all of it is already softening at the edges.
The purpose of this record is narrow and deliberate: to keep what was done — by governments, by police, by platforms and by protesters — set down in one place, in plain words, attached to the documents that prove it. Not to win an argument, but to make sure the argument can still be had honestly.
Lest we forget — keep the record straight, with the real documents, so that what happened, and what was found, cannot be quietly erased.