Thread by @KatGeorgieva

It's almost 12 o'clock.

I am standing by for the Ambassador Bridge blockade injunction hearing.

Follow along for the details.

Chief Justice Morawetz is presiding.

Josh Hunter with the Ontario Ministry of the Attorney General has made a notice of motion.

Attorney General seeks leave to intervene in this injunction application as well, to assist the court in this case - given the windespread impact.

No objections.

Intervenor status granted to the Attorney General as a party to these proceedings.

Alan Honnor, lawyer with the Democracy Fund, also seeking intervenor status. It is a civil liberties organization.

Seeking leave to be granted as a "friend of the court" to provide a different perspective to the court.

No objections.

Court is dealing with some technical issues for some folks to join the call. Taking a ten minute recess.

According to the Democracy Fund's website, they've sent lawyers to Windsor to offer free legal assistance to truckers and other protestors fighting mandates.

There are more than 500 participants involved in the proceeding - so they're working to increase the zoom capacity to allow for everyone to join.

Sorry for the delay there folks, Twitter went down for a short little bit.

Mike Wills reps the plaintiff @APMACanada
- He's making arguments now for a prohibitive injunction against the blockade.
- Says there's evidence municipal bylaws are being broken

He does acknowledge that there have been reports that one lane had been opened at some point today.

He cites a number of auto assembly plants that have had to reduce their work capacity as a result of the blockade.

He also correct a number cited in the documents that the blockade is costing $50B a day -- when in actuality that number should be $50M.

Cites a number of legal violations including nuisance, mischief for interfering with the lawful use of property, and intimidation (including blocking and obstructing a highway).

Justice responds that he is "satisfied that there is a serious issue to be tried in this hearing"

Wills adds, there's strong evidence demonstrators engaging in "civil disobedience" and are in violation of the Highway Traffic Act.

Now speaking about "irreparable harm" to auto manufacturers.

The APMA submits it's "plain and obvious" that the actions of the blockade are having a significant economic impact on plaintiff and othere companies across Canada.

International trade is shut down with no compelling or competing interest, Wills says. Aside from freedom of expression, he says that's not "sufficient" to shut down international trade, even if it were to be done appropriately, which Wills says, it is not.

The plaintiff acknowledges that the demonstrations thus far have been peaceful, without violence and undertaken by presumably honest and good-intended people, done in good faith.

However, Wills says - the peacefulness of the demonstration is not a deciding factor here.

He says, the question is - is it lawful? He says there's strong evidence the actions have not been lawful.

He submits, freedom of expression & right to assembly are protected, but can't be done in an "unfettered matter."

Says: "it's not compatible to attempt or continue to exercise one's freedom of expression by blocking any highway and certainly an international trade artery."

I should clarify, that this point was made as an example of a counter-argument from the defendents, not necessarily the perspective of the plaintiff's lawyer. Which he then addresses as I explain in my tweets that follow. Apologies for the confusion.

Taking a recess for 30 minutes.

More presentations ahead.

The Chief Justice stresses a decision will be made this afternoon.

We're back.

Jennifer King now about to make arguments on behalf of the City of Windsor.

A reminder that City of Windsor is not the plaintiff but is an intervener in support.

King says: the blockage is of "grave" concern to the city, and having a significant impact on residents and businesses.

Will address a few topics including:
- ongoing harm to Windsor, residents & businesses
- will review breach of Windsor's by-laws

She says the city "does not seek to stifle" the right to protest, but says freedom of expression does not include breaking the law or impeding businesses.

She's breaking down the impact on Windsor.
- says it's "upending the lives of its residents."
- Says it's disrupted city's ability do deliver critical services
- forced to relocate fire and emergency service apparatus

Notes UWindsor is impacted and the closure of schools near the demonstration that have shifted to online learning today.

King says: the rule of law must be the dominant policy.

She says protesters remain free to protest - provided they comply with the relevant laws.

Josh Hunter for the Attorney General begins his arguments:
- says the matters of serious issue and irreparable harm have already been established

Hunter:
- Says none of the protesters violating a host of municipal by-laws have brought any constitutional challenge to them, therefore the bylaws are in effect, valid, must be complied with unless a court strikes them down

Hunter:
- says there is "no question" that policial protest is at the core of rights protected in the charter and crucial to democracy, but not all forms of political protest are protected by section 2b.

Says being on the sidewalk protesting is one thing, putting trucks and vehicles across the bridge blocking access is "a different world."

Hunter: "They are blockading the bridge. They are closing off the highway. You can't use it to pass and access adjoining buildings, much less adjoining countries. Its very fucntion has been destroyed by the protest at issue."

Hunter: "I submit that cutting off the lifeblood of a province does not promote democratic discourse. It's trying to intimidate the democracy."

"It promotes my way - or literally in this case - the highway."

The question is ultimately: is how this protest is being conducted compatible with open public expression, and Hunter submits, that no, it is not.

Hunter:
"Political protest is important but must happen in a civilized and reasonable way that allows the people of Ont. to carry on with their lives."

He says - this protest goes too far.

We turn now to Alan Honner, with The Democracy Fund.

Daniel Santoro with Democracy Fund steps in for arguments.

Says their perspective is informed by having chatted with protesters on the ground last night.

Santoro - on the matter of demonstrators parked on the highway.
"I think what we have here is truck drivers who are commercial truck drivers wh would like to cross the bridge but who were unable to do so because they were unvaccinated, and therefore they stopped."

Questions what the court adds with an injunction because police already have lawful options to enforce the law.

The question is: if police have power to arrest, and haven't done so, "Why should your honour issue an order?"

Santoro continues: the question isn't whether the protest is legal, but the ultimate question is whether the court should intervene in this particular scenario.

Santoro asks the court to consider other options before issuing an injunction.

Suggests it's not clear if an injunction would result in more or less respect for the rule of law.

Lawyer Antoine D'Ailly jumping in now in defence of protesters.

Says this matter is connected to the larger protests in Ottawa and across country.

The crux of it are related to an allegation of overreach by the government, he says.

Says demonstrations and picketing are supposed to cause some degree of nuisance, and are to be expected.

It's all part of the right to freedom of expression and right to freedom of assembly, he says.

Says he doesn't see enough evidence about the frequency or extent of the blockade/impediment to traffic.

Justice, asks - You don't see that based on the evidence that's before me?

Justice: I find it surprising that your submission is that there's no evidence to establish this.

D'Ailly: Says given the limited amount of time that the respondents have had to submit evidence, and examine the affidavits, that the court should at least note that the "evidentiary basis is lacking in this case."

Justice: one of the "fundamental difficulties" he has with D'Ailly's position is - that the activities some of the parties are claiming are for the cause of freedom "directly results in perhaps the denial of freedom to many others in society."

D'Ailly: responds to say - the question now is what relief should be granted by the court, and what is the actual harm that can be demonstrated in order to make those kinds of orders?

Justice: I caution you that there has been evidence of the economic disruption.

D'Ailly: Humbly submit that respondents haven't had a chance to cross examine those affidavits.

Justice notes: the injunction is just being sought for a limited period of time.

James Kitchen - co-counsel for the party that says they're "John Doe" in this case.

Says the harm has to be irreparable.

Justice: there was evidence that assembly lines have been shut down. This results in workers for both Stellantis and Ford not working. When they're not working, they're not being paid. When they're not being paid, a number of other trickle down effects occur. Am I to ignore that?

Kitchen says, don't ignore, but must be contextualized.

"That's actually ultimately waht this case is all about."

Says vaccine mandates are why many other people in society cannot work, cannot put food on the table, cannot travel, move freely.

Says that's at the crux of this case.

Justice says: repeating himself, the activities subject to this injunction, the freedoms that those want, directly results in a denial of freedom to others in society.

Justice: "How do I square that?"

Kitchen: Would be inappropriate to prioritize one group over the other, has to be balanced.

Kitchen: These people are only on the bridge because of "unprecedented" attacks on the civil liberties of people in this nation who are supposed to have bodily atonomy.

Kitchen continues to argue the ways in which he belives demonstrator's rights are being violated in terms of policies in place by the government.

Justice jumps in: I'm here to adjudicate an injunction based on the record before me. What the gov. of Canada, Ont is doing, might be of great interest to you and to many people in this country, but with respect of the matter before me today is somewhat more narrow.

Kitchen: submits that if an injunction is granted it should be that some lanes should open - and that it shouldn't be a complete blockade.

Justice: The overwhelming evidence that is properly before me on the record is that there is a complete blockade of the bridge, which you have conceded cannot be tolerated. Then it follows that there has to be some form of order, which is what we will be discussing.

Another individual, a truck driver is speaking now - Kristian Langenfeld. Says many feel they have no other option in terms of demonstrating in this way.

He's going off course a bit - so Justice is jumping in to say he's sticking with the issue of the blockade and not the wider issues that he's bringing up.

Recess for 10 minutes.

I’m stepping aside for ten minutes to do a radio update on @CBCAfternoonDr !! I’ll be back with updates ASAP.

I'm back!

My colleague was listening and tells me:

D'Ailly argued that there's a big difference between a blockade and a minor inconvenicnce.

He's argued that the primary block along the stretch is a police car.

Says roadway is clear, except for police officers impediment.

There was another 5 minute recess. And back again.

King: we're seeking an update from Deputy Chief of Police.

Justice: Might be a few others who want to speak, willing to hear them, but briefly given the time frame.

Lyall Tryst joins the call:
- He's a private citizen seeking a question on the charter.
- Justice says this is not the time for that.
- Moving on to next speaker.

There were a few others who were supposed to join, but either were unable to connect or didn't have their full names identified.

Update from King now from WPS: She says according to deputy chief - the exit off of bridge southbound exiting onto Huron Church is completely closed and blocked by demonstrators except for one lane that was negotiated to be kept open for emergency purposes.

No other movement allowed, so inaccessible.

Northbound HC Road & Tecumseh to College, blocked by demonstrators, no access to bridge.

BREAKING: Injunction will be granted.

Justice: Satisfied that the case has been made out for an injunction, which is granted.

It will take effect at 7pm this evening. This gives individuals the opportunity and the time to clear the area.

Court will resume at 5:15pm to discuss details.

Windsor Police just issued a stern statement to demonstrators:

"We are providing notice that anyone blocking streets or assisting others in the blocking of streets may be committing a criminal offence and must immediately cease ...

...further unlawful activity or you may face charges. You could be arrested if you are a party to the offence or assisting others in the direct or indirect commission of this offence."

They add: vehicles may be seized.

And - charges/convictions could lead to denial in crossing the US border.

Meanwhile - Mayor Dilkens has called a special in-camera Windsor Police Services Board meeting at 6pm.

My colleague is keeping an eye on the return to court at 5:15 as I prep for CBC Windsor News at 6. I'll tweet out significant updates!

No significant updates from that follow up hearing.

All eyes are on the protest site as the injunction kicks in in less than 30 minutes.

One update actually: Injunction will be in effect for 10 days.