Thread by @glen_mcgregor

The hearing to consider a possible extension of the court order against truck horns issued in Zexi v. Barber et. al. is now before the court, virtually. I'll try to relay as much as I can in this thread.

Lawyer Paul Champ says plaintiff wants to add Pat King as respondent. Justice Hugh McLean stands the matter down until 10:15 am to give King a chance to appear. (Currently, only Barber, Lich and Dichter are represented by counsel, Keith Wilson.)

And we're back. No one has joined to represent King. Champ says they are seeking continuation of the interim order issued Feb. 7 as an interlocutory order for 60 days from today's date.

Champ starts laying out affidavit evidence presented to support this request, as well as national and international media. "I don't think any order could be more widely reported," he tells the court.

Champ says it appears King has notice of the claim to add his a defendant because they sent an SMS to him and its the language of the response was consistent with him. (Not sure what that means exactly, but I have some guesses.)

In her affidavit, Li said horns went silent on Feb. 7 after the order was issued, and that King posted a FB video in which he said everyone must be "dead silent on the horns... There are grounds to arrest you and pull you out of your trucks."

In the same video, King said people in Ottawa haven't been able to sleep, added that it's "hilarious... kind of funny."

Champ says, per Li, on Feb. 10 the horns began to start again, not constant like before, but periodically through the day, and the same kind of air horn and train horns. And resident Flynn gave affidavit evidence similar to resumption.

Champ to turns to evidence from Jeremy King, a private investigator retained by plaintiff, who was monitoring whether the respondents communicated the order. King referred to a Barber post suggesting truckers blow horns if police approach.

In sum, Champ says the three named defendants have not complied with Justice McLean's order.

He wants the court to add new language to the order to stop respondents from inciting and encouraging protesters to blow their horns.

And the revised order would specifically name social channels that respondents would use be required to use to communicate a revised order, if the court grants it.

"It is regrettable that your previous order was violated," Champ tells the court, refers to possible contempt hearing if required. Wants the order sent to the Sheriff of Ottawa.

McLean doesn't know if the sheriff has the capacity to enforce the order, which could put him in trouble. "I don't want to put anybody in jeopardy," McLean says.

McLean notes that the sheriff is capable of seizing assets on court order, but maybe not enforcing an order like this. Champ says he was informed that that involving sheriff would make it easier for police to enforce.

(There seems to be a lot of confusion about what exactly the sheriff is able to do. But McLean doesn't want to put him into a situation where he could be held in contempt if he can't do it.)

McLean notes that sheriff mostly enforces seizure of assets under court order. Champ is fine with yanking this language from the proposed new order.

McLean is telling a story about an enforcement order related to custody of four children in Toronto that went badly, to illustrate the potential for difficulty.

Lawyer for the three named respondents, Keith Wilson, says his clients consented to sheriff provision because they want to see the order enforced. Says the order requiring them to communicate using their social is "murky" because their accounts sometimes get shut down.

Wilson says deal with the mayor to move vehicles onto Wellington is still under way, with some already moved and 40 more to go. Reiterates that his clients want the horns to stop.

McLean discussing balance between right to protest and not hurting people, the latter being "paramount," quoting some 1948 precedent that I didn't catch, that expressed concern Bill of Rights could become "a suicide pact."

McLean going on a riff about duty of protesters to protect their fellow citizens and not keep them up all night. "They cannot use force of one kind or another or pain or anything else that's disruptive."

"In this circumstances, the public's rights are far superior to the protesters," he concludes and agrees to issue the new order, in place for 60 more days or until the court rescinds it.

Hearing is concluded. Judge agrees to continue the Feb. 7 order for another 60 days. -30-