Thread by @atMatthewBest

Ok. It looks like THIS will be my thread for the Tamara Lich hearing. There's an audio test going on now, things seem to be working properly. Let's leave the other thread as an archive to the hubris of mankind.

#tamaralich #TruckerConvoy

For background, Tamara Lich was denied bail, along with Pat King and George Billings. Another major player, Chris Barber, was granted bail.

Reasonable bail is a charter right, not to be denied without just cause.

#tamaralich #truckerconvoy

Ok, we are now in session. We're not getting a warning about the recording of the proceeding from the registrar. I believe this is likely to have no effect.

There is a publication ban being sought for a witness. So if you ask me who this witness is, you aren't getting it. There's no publication ban requested to her evidence, however. The Crown has no difficulties in agreeing to that request.

The Crown says per discussion with the defence, we may mention she's only a relative, nothing more. That's the surety for Lich.

#tamaralich #truckerconvoy #truckerbail #TamaraLich

"One of this issues here this morning has been the number of people who've joined," His Honour says about parking the witness in a waiting room (for exclusion).

Crown says it's OK for the witness to stay in that case, on the balance of merits.

Defence is calling Lich to the witness stand now. Judge is admonishing the officer to remove Lich's shackles because there's no security risk. Officer says it's standard practice if only one officer present. Judge asks another officer attend.

This is 100% correct.

#tamaralich

Lich is being sworn in now. She's being asked to keep her voice up (with all the plexiglass blocking sound).

Defence is asking Lich if she'll adopt the affidavit -- ie: will she treat her words from before as the same as today.

Lich affirms she adopts the affidavit

#tamaralich

Lich says it's the 2nd time she's testified in court. "It's a little nerve-wracking," she says.

#tamaralich #truckerconvoy #truckerbail

Crown: "In the last bail hearing you testified you drove from AB to Ottawa w/ Mr. Chris Barber."

Lich agrees. Crown asks if Barber and Lich were both arrested separately on Feb. 17. Asks if both are rep'd by Diane Magas. She agrees w/ this.

#tamaralich

Crown asks if she was under the understanding that Barber was released Friday.

Lich says, "I think he was released on... maybe it was Friday, yes."

Crown: "He was released by the same judge you had your bail hearing in front of?"

Lich: "Yes, he was, sir."

The Crown asks if Lich indicated in her affidavit that Justice Bourgeois was bias against her.

Defence wants the actual paragraph to be put to the witness, says that's not what was written in the affidavit.

#TamaraLich

In the affidavit, Lich alleges that she saw a video showing "Justice Bourgeois being praised by Justin Trudeau as a candidate for the Liberal Party".

Says if she'd known that before, she would have asked Bourgeois to recuse herself.

#TamaraLich

Crown asks if Lich was implying if Justice Bourgeois was bias towards her. Lich says that because of the "rhetoric" coming from the Liberal Party, she would have felt uncomfortable with that.

Crown is asking Lich, considering Chris Barber was released by same judge, if she feels this way -- despite knowing Bourgeois released "some one else -- someone you drove with from AB to Ottawa -- you're suggesting to the court ... you'd have felt uncomfortable"

Lich: "They were two separate cases, sir, and I don't believe that we were charged with the same things."

#tamaralich #lichbail #truckerbail

(For brevity at this point, I may abbreviate our dramatis personae -- D for Defence, C for Crown, J for Judge, L for Lich)

C: "Someone you traveled with from AB to Ottawa, Chris Barber, also had unequivocal expressions of discontent ... with Justin Trudeau."

L: "Yes"

C: "I'm suggesting to you, ma'am, you're not being truthful ... when you say that you would have asked for a recusal"

L: "I am being truthful. I don't know the particulars of Mr. Barber's case." Says she only knows how she feels w/r/t this hearing.

#tamaralich

C: "You would have felt uncomfortable with this judge ... who released [Barber] ... because she ran as a Lib. candidate?"

L: "That is correct sir"

C again asks if L minimized or mislead in her affidavit and directs us to a different paragraph. "You discuss your husband's evidence," C says.

C reads L's affidavit: "It was also the first time Dwayne Lich testified in court ... I could see he was very nervous and was trying to answer the questions too quickly."

"He said that he flew to Canada on a private jet. It was not a private jet, but a plane that was chartered."

C asks if it was chartered so L could travel to Ott. L says it was chartered to bring the lawyers out.

#tamaralich #truckerbail

(A quick reminder, C is the Crown attorney, D is counsel for defence Magas, L is Lich, J is Judge, etc.)

C asks if L is misleading the court about how much her husband is spending on food daily, not mentioning there was a free continental breakfast.

C: "I'm suggesting you're spinning your husband's evidence ... your husband said we sustaining himself on apples, bananas and oranges"

C says, "the question is this. You imply... your husband was well fed, despite only spending $7 on food, because there was a lot of food available and he consumed it."

C: and that was not the evidence he presented was it?

It's a dispute about whether Lich was being truthful or not about what her husband ate. It's about whether Lich's statements are credible or if she's impeached her own statements.

This is one of those back-and-forths that comes up in court.

Crown is now comparing Lich's husbands evidence (from the original hearing) vs her own affidavit today.

Crown's asking Lich about her income and debt service. We're doing math now. Court!

Her income vs. Ford F-150, rent, utilities, car insurance, basic necessities, groceries, phones.

Court!

#tamaralich #TruckerConvoy2022

Crown suggests Lich is being untruthful about her debts, and if she agrees or disagrees with that.

Lich: "I don't agree, no. I'm not sure what you're referring to, sir."

#tamaralich

Crown pulls up a document asking she's also asking if she's Tamara Lee Dundas. She is. He brings up a debt dated 2013 and suggests it's an ongoing debt.

Lich says it's been paid off a couple of years ago.

Crown: "What was the court order about ... what was it required to pay?"

Lich says she went to a company called Money Mentors and paid it through them to get her debts cleared up.

The Crown's now submitting that as an exhibit. Defence wants personal info redacted but is ok o/w

(This is the company Lich says she used in Alberta: moneymentors.ca)

(The document Moiz Karimjee was referring to was a personal property registry search from Alberta.)

Crown says this was a securities violation and nothing to do w/ person debts.

Lich says she doesn't know what securities violation is.

#tamaralich #lichbail

The Judge catches a mistake -- it's not a security vio, the checkmark was in a completely different column indicating what the matter was about.

Crown concedes this is correct.

#tamaralich

Crown: "As far as I can remember, you say ... I've always identified as Indigenous spiritually."

Lich says her parents told her she was adopted and her parents encouraged her to explore that side of her identity.

C says, "I'm not here to challenge your identity -- please don't think that for a moment. What I am going to say is, your Indigenous background and spirituallity has nothing to do w/ the offences before the court?"

L says, "no they don't."

Crown asks if there's an elder in the Indigenous elder in the court to support her.

Magas says there's two woman elders present in the body of the court, says Karimjee can't see them. Defence says "they're here on support."

Crown says he'll clarify what he means by support. "There's no Elder in the community that you've presented that's going to supervise you and your bail?"

L: "No sir."

C: "Or act as your surety?"

L: "That is correct, sir."

#tamaralich #lichbail

We're coming up to the publication banned witnesses' name, so you'll not be knowing who I am referring to other than that this is her relative, nor what that relation is, in accordance with the Court's order.

DO NOT MESS WITH THIS, PEOPLE. FOR GOD'S SAKE.

#tamaralich #lichbail

(We need to have nice things. Seriously. If you have questions w/r/t what publication bans cover, for God's sake clarify with me or another court journalist or a lawyer.)

Crown asks if Lich reached an agreement with her employer about how long she would need on a leave of absence from work.

Lich says it was arranged about a week or two.

C: "You advised him week to week how much time you'd need away from work."

C: "There was no specific date of return to work?"
L: "That is correct."
C: "You'd advise him on a weekly basis when you'd be coming back?"
L: "Yes."
C: "You'd testified on last court date, you'd obey all court conditions because you want to go back to your family, correct?"

L: "That is correct."
C: "Yet you were in Ott. w/o your family?"
L: "Correct."
...
C: "So you had no definite timeline when you'd return to AB?"

Lich says she only had so much off time she could use to be in Ottawa.

#tamaralich

Lich says she wanted to get back to the kids, a job that she loves. "There was no plan to stay here indefinitely."

#tamaralich

We're going to take a break right now for 15 minutes.

"Now, how do I get out?" Justice Johnston asks.

Love the cute little codas and asides to COVID trials.

Alright folks, what am I having for lunch today? You all have 15 minutes. I've included a sadism choice where you starve me with coffee only.

https://twitter.com/atMatthewBest/status/1499068111974240262

As a reminder for anybody joining us, I'll be using abbrevations for our common players due to Twitter char. limits.

They are:
Tamara (L)ich
Moiz Karimjee for the (C)rown
Diane Magas for the (D)efence
appearing before
(J)ustice John Johnston

In the Superior Court of Justice.

We are back and ready to go!

Karimjee is asking Lich if her bail plan includes any supervision with social media.

Lich: "To have somebody monitor my social media, you mean? ... Yes."

Crown asks if Lich's proposed surety is a supporter of the convoy, or if she's aware of the surety expressing support. Lich says she's not aware of that.

C: "In your affidavit ... oh come on"

(This is what court's indulgences are for, folks. The joys of technical difficulties. Karimjee was just being complimented for his deft Zoom skills before the break, too)

C: "In your affidavit ... you indicate that, 'i was nervous and anxious and tried to focus on answering questions of the lawyers ... when asked a yes or no type of question, I just answered the question by a yes or no ... I did not know that the Judge expected me to elaborate...

C: "I was sincere and truthful in my answers."
Lich affirms that's true. Crown suggests she was being evasive during her original hearing. Lich denies she was being evasive then.

Karimjee pulls up the record of her original testimony, points our attention to Lich's testimony that she was willing to leave Ottawa.

"For those listening in, we've just disabled the chat. This is a courtroom, you're not allowed to do that," says Justice Johnston.

God, people.

#tamaralich

Back to the matter at hand, Karimjee is directing our attention back to Lich's testimony about how she arrived in Ottawa.

C: "So you're not being evasive there?"
L: "No, I wasn't trying to be evasive sir ... I thought you meant the courtroom, not coming to Ottawa."

C: "So you thought the Crown did not know you'd be travelling to court in your own car?"
L: "I don't know ... I remember you asking me that and thought you were referring to me coming to court" [as opposed to traveling to Ott.

C: "You claim you didn't understand the question of savings, referring to money in the bank, correct?"
L: "Yes, I guess so."

Crown is now discussing the proposed sureties again, and whether the proposed sureties (not today's surety) is a supporter of the convoy or not.

Defence is now saying that that particular surety was not proposed to the court. Simply somebody who was mentioned as a possible surety (again, not today's surety).

Karimjee asked if she gave those possible sureties to Magas.

Magas is objecting vociferously that this solicitor/client privilege.

Crown is now saying that because he takes the pain of running the background checks, that's not solicitor/client privilege.

"I think there's a way to ask it, but the way you've asked it is in the solicitor/client privilege vein. I rule the question as currently posed is solicitor/client privilege," Justice Johnston says.

Karimjee's now going to need to rephrase. (Good)

Karimjee again asked if that possible surety before is a supporter of the freedom convoy.

Lich says she thinks she leans *against* the freedom convoy, but they haven't really talked about it.

#TamaraLich

C: "Even your employer, your manager, is a supporter of the freedom convoy, correct?"
L: "I assume so."
C: "I mean, come on. You're taking a leave of absence ... and you don't know if he supports the freedom convoy or not."
L: "It's not my place to speak for him."

Crown asks if she knows if he supports it or not. Lich says she supposes so.

Crown asks if she plans to go back to work for a supporter of the convoy.

Lich says she'd love to get back to a job she loves.

Crown asks if today's proposed surety (the relative) supports the convoy.

Lich says she doesn't know. She can't speak for the relative. She says this relative supports her.

C: "You're telling this court you don't know if somebody you're proposing as a surety supports the...

C: ... freedom convoy or not."
L: "[The surety] came out to support me, not the convoy"

#tamaralich #lichbail

Crown is asking Lich if she remembers saying she didn't know how soon she could get outside of Ott.

Lich says she remembers that, she didn't have access to a phone to make those arrangements

#tamaralich #lichbail #truckerconvoy2022

Crown asks if Lich could rent a hotel room outside Ottawa. Lich says that's true.

Crown asks then why she couldn't say. Lich says the idea [of renting a hotel] hadn't occurred to her.

Crown asks if Lich asserts the jet was a charter, not a private flight.

Lich says that's correct.

Crown asks if it was a private chartered flight. Lich says that's correct.

Crown asks about passengers. Lich says it was lawyers from JCCF, her husband and an accountant as well.

C: "So when you say it's not a private jet, it's a chartered flight, you'll agree with me at the end of the day that it's a private chartered flight."
L: "Yes sir."
C: "Being a private flight ... there was no vaccination requirements to travel between provinces."

Crown is asking if she knew the jet could fly her back to Medicine Hat (as a way to circumvent inter-provincial travel vaccine requirements)

Lich says that that never occurred to her.

*That's all the questions the Crown has.

#TamaraLich #lichbail #TruckerConvoy

Magas now for the defence is asking if Lich has a plan today to return to Alberta.

Lich says she does.

Magas asks if Lich is on leave from her job.

Lich says that's true.

That's all the questions from the Defence for Lich.

#tamaralich

The proposed surety is entering now. I'll report on the evidence they give but not their identity beyond being a relative

(Proposed Surety may be abbreviated PS)
Crown asks if the proposed surety has been in contact with Lich. The surety says yes. Also says they've been following Lich on social media.

Proposed surety says they knew a state of emergency had been declared, was aware of Ottawa Police announcements, prov. of Ontario declared an emergency -- all asking the occupation to end.

Feb 6, 9, 11 on those dates respectively

Surety was aware of the honking injunction, of the several video statements from Lich that "people should hold the line," was aware Lich was involved in raising funds for the convoy.

#tamaralich #lichbail #truckerconvoy2022

Surety was aware that when Lich was arrested, Lich said "hold the line."

Crown shares an Facebook post from proposed surety on Feb. 19 reflecting favourably on Lich.

Surety says that's their post, yes.

Crown shows picture of streets of Ottawa being block, asks if Proposed Surety knew the streets were blocked.

Crown asks if surety told Lich to stop at all, or if the situation was wrong.

Surety: "Blocking the streets is wrong. Protesting is not."

Crown asks why surety didn't advise Lich [to stop].

Surety: "I don't advise her."

Crown: "Your [relative] is in jail, and you're saying you're proud of her?"

Surety: "Yes."

Crown: "You were proud of her without knowing all the facts?"

Surety: "Yes."

Crown's reiterating that surety was aware of emerg orders, "hold the line" comments, etc.

Crown: "I'm going to suggest to you ... that you believe the ends justify the means."

Surety: "No."

Crown: "So how can say you're proud of her on Feb 19?"

Surety: "I was proud of her...

Surety: ... for standing up for what she believes."

There's a discussion about whether it's fair to characterize this witness as being proud of blocking traffic or of protesting. It's getting animated.

Magas is pushing back hard on this point.

Magas is saying the Crown rephrased the question on the witness to put words in surety's mouth. Crown will rephrase.

C: "You surely knew that nobody had a problem with [Lich] or anybody else holding up a sign?"
S: "No, not everybody."
C: "Officials, the government, didn't have..

C: ... a problem with anybody holding up signs, saying no mandates?"
S: "Correct."

Crown asks if Surety was proud of Lich regardless of the situation.

Crown reiterates that Surety believes the ends justify the means.

Surety: "NO!" Surety says she doesn't have to agree with Lich to be proud of her.

Karimjee restates again that Surety believes ends justifies the means.

Surety says she was proud of Lich up until she broke of the law.

We're going in circles right here. Seems like Karimjee wants to suggest pride is rooted in action (pride ends when good acts end, if you continue being proud, you continue thinking acts are good), Surety wants to answer pride is rooted in continuity (pride continues based on ...

prior acts and persists through bad acts).

This is getting heated and testy on this difference. Objections from Magas as Crown continues to refer to Lich's guilty as a done deal rather than allegations.

Judge agrees they're allegations at this point.

"Your honour, it's 1 o'clock, perhaps we can take a break."

We're breaking for lunch. Back at 2 p.m.

If I find out you people intend to feed me nothing but coffee I'm going to be MAD AS HELL.

#tamaralich #lichbail #truckerbail

His Honour just told me to have a good lunch. I'm taking that as a court order. Egg noodles won.

Decide here if you want to split these threads between morning(ish) and afternoon sessions or keep it to one thread. Have an hour to decide:

https://twitter.com/atMatthewBest/status/1499083185208107012

Alright, so begins our afternoon session of the Tamara Lich bail review

#tamaralich #lich #truckerconvoy #truckerbail

The witness, the proposed surety, is being reminded that she is still under oath she took before break.

Crown reads from affidavit from Surety: "Based on my experience with the Applicant, I am confident that she will follow every condition imposed upon her by the Court."

C: Did you also consider her stay in Ottawa?
Surety: "Yes."

Crown says Surety pledged $10k, Surety confirms they did. Crown asks if that was savings. $7500 was surety's savings.

Surety is now says their home has an equity of $100k, has no other property, owns a vehicle -- makes payments on it. Has $5k equity in the vehicle.

Crown asks if surety would be comfortable pledging the equity of their home if Lich was released. Surety would have to have a discussion with their spouse.

#tamaralich #lich #lichbail #truckerbail

Crown asks if surety would post $150k combined home/RRSP equity. Again, discussion with spouse is the answer.

Karimjee is now pulling up a Western Standard article about the "Canada-wide human Freedom Chain" that's scheduled for March 5.

Surety says they're familiar with this. (Surety actually caught the date before Karimjee did).

Crown asks if surety know the nature of the chain -- ie: to block the trans-canada highway with people.

Surety says they were aware "generally" of that idea, per how Crown phrased question.

#tamaralich #lichbail

Crown asks surety if they know if that is planned as part of support for the freedom convoy. Crown intends to enter that as exhibit.

Defence says, "it's a newspaper article, so I'd protest the weight of it..." trails off.

Magas for defence asks proposed surety, "Do you have any background in law?"

Surety: "None."

D: "Do you know what would be the essential elements of a criminal offence of mischief?"

S: "Yes."

Defence asks surety witness if they know all of the evidence against Lich. "No."

Crown: "I anticipate a leading question."

UMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM

Defence: "When you mention she broke the law, what were you referring to?"

Surety: "The blockade on Rideau and Sussex."

Defence asks if Surety lines of credit, etc. Surety says yes. Defence asks about the pooled $10k and where it is.

Surety says it's "in trust".

Defence asks about the article on the march. "If [Lich] were to be released... can you ensure she doesn't participate in that march?"

S: "Yes."

Says they can ensure Lich doesn't participate in or support the march.

#tamaralich #lichbail #truckerbail #truckerconvoy

Karimjee is objecting to this, since he would have questioned this on cross-examination re: enforcement.

Now judge is saying he himself has questions about the bail plan.

But that's all the defence questions for now, now going to Judge's questions.

Justice Johnston asks how far surety lives.

S: "It's about a 20 minute drive."
Judge says there's concerns about whether Lich will continue to participate.

Surety says they understand.

J: "How are you going to enforce that when ... part of the communication from [Lich] is from Facebook Live. How would you handle that?"

S: "I'd say she should stay off social media ... if I have to go over every day and go throug her search history, go through her phone, I will"

Surety says they hope they won't have to do that, though.

Surety says they're risking a lot of their savings, their family. Thinks Lich will listen to them

#tamaralich

Judge asks if surety would actually be able to phone the police if surety could call police if they found Lich on the phone or internet.

Surety says yes, they "wouldn't have a choice."

Questions arising from judge's questions. Crown asks about surety's job, side business, surety's children -- figuring this is about how much time surety has available to police Lich.

C: "Between your business ... your children ... how much time a week do you spend on that?"
S: "Lots ... about two full-time jobs [worth of time]"
Crown suggests Surety doesn't have a lot of time to "babysit" Lich.
Surety says they'll "make time," have had six jobs at once before

Crown: "Why would you trust a person that ... broke the law?"
Surety: "Because I'm putting this out, she knows me personally," emphasizes the relationship to Lich.

Crown asks if Lich would "try to keep it from [surety]" (ie: reoffending, breaking conditions) and do it anyway.

Surety says no, they don't think Lich will.

C: "As far as you're concerned, do you think that when she said repeatedly that she'll 'hold the line,' that she would still listen to you?"

S: "Yes."

C: "You're offering to supervise her now. Why didn't you tell her back down and not hold the line before?"

S: Because to me, hold the line meant, speak your mind, carry on protesting."

Crown asks when surety formed the impression in their mind that Lich broke the law.

Crown: Suggests that that surety wouldn't turn Lich in based on facebook post.

Surety offers an analogy of being proud of a person regardless of a few bad acts.

Magas for the defence has no question for surety, says she has no other evidence to offer.

#tamaralich #lich #truckerbail

Justice Johnston asks if that's all the evidence for the defence -- it is. Is that all the evidence for the Crown -- it is, with respect to what Crown still needs to submit.

We're moving to argument now.

What we're arguing about isn't the submissions. Instead, it's about discrepancies in the counsel's record keeping. Indices! Descriptions! Numbering! The word occupation! The Oxford dictionary!

Defence takes issue with the definition of "occupation" based on military meaning of the word.

Judge: "The issue here is not the description of whatever this is. You can call it a protest, you can call it an occupation, you can call it a takeover."

His Honour emphasizes that the terminology doesn't change the underlying facts of the case, which is what's before the court.

Defence also takes issue with some descriptions of the evidence referring to people as "friends" of Tamara, especially because the videos have opinions or racist terminology. Says they have no connection to Lich.

Karimjee says Freedom Convoy attempted to dissociate themselves from Pat King. Says Lich has always believed in Indigenous spirituality. Then the "friend" referred to is Pat King making racist comments about Indigenous culture.

Karimjee's cat just became involved in the Zoom hearing. Cute -- he says he has the cat, a German Shep, and an African grey parrot.

The judge is asking Karimjee if there's a situation where Lich was present when Pat King made those remarks, or participated in the video. "There's nothing to tie it to her particularly,"

"Your honour is correct," Crown says.

#tamaralich #lich

(The issue Magas was raising that it was unfair to Lich to draw a connection of friendship between her and King to impugn her character through King's rant)

Magas says media reports are not proper evidence before the court, and should not be relied on.

Karimjee says, "First answer to that, is this is a bail hearing where credible and trustworthy evidence is admissible. This is CTV news which reports on workers being kept from work"

Karimjee points to an article from @globeandmail discussing Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder from the horns. "All of those are credible and trustworthy evidence and relevant on the tertiary grounds, and the secondary grounds."

@globeandmail As a reminder, those grounds are, is this person likely to reoffend (secondary grounds) and will the bail offend society or maintain confidence in administration of justice (tertiary)

@globeandmail Magas is citing R. c Turcotte, QC Court of Appeal, 2014 on using media clippings as evidence. Here's the case:

canliiconnects.org/en/summaries/3…

@globeandmail "There is evidence in the form of affidavit evidence from the civil lawsuit before the court ... on the noise issue" Judge says. "I agree 100%, an editorial piece ... is not something the court in a bail hearing... should consider."

@globeandmail Judge says he cannot, will not, should not rely on media clippings. Will only rely on it for what folks from the area allege happens.

Points out he "certainly agrees" with the Supreme Court of Canada (because stare decisis is a thing)

#tamaralich #lichbail #truckerbail

@globeandmail Magas says SCC established three grounds on which bail review can happen:

1. Justice erred in law.
2. Impugned decision was clearly inappropriate (if the decision gave too much or too little weight to a material factor)
3. A relevant change of the circumstance of the case

@globeandmail The case Magas is citing is R. v St-Cloud, SCC 2015.

You can read that decision here.

scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-cs…

@globeandmail Magas says she's raising all three grounds from St-Cloud.

@globeandmail Magas is offering examples of Black Bloc infiltrators in peaceful protests, setting fires, throwing rocks, damaging property. "Serious violence," Magas says.

Says one man got a 12 month conditional sentence, another got 7 month conditional sentence.

@globeandmail 30 days in jail, 45 days, Magas says.

Says her client is charged with mischief and counseling mischief -- no allegations of violence, harm, destruction of property (in comparison to the Black Bloc offenders she cited).

@globeandmail She's now citing Fenton v. Toronto Police Services, same thing dealing with G20. Here's background

cavalluzzo.com/resources/case…

@globeandmail Magas said the officer in that case ordered arrests of lawful protesters and Black Bloc indiscriminately.

@globeandmail Defence is making the point that this shows that what's apparent on the ground, in the minute, may very well result in acquittal.

She's intimating that just because Lich was arrested, doesn't mean it'll be found that way.

@globeandmail She says this actually goes towards the proposed surety's strength as a surety -- that because she views Lich's behaviour as law-breaking, she'll police her rigorously and with an eye towards compliance (since Surety said they were CERTAIN Lich had acted unlawfully)

@globeandmail Magas is citing an affidavit from a federal worker who found the protesters peaceful, friendly. Another from former cop who says he was liaising with OPS, Parliamentary Protective Services. A third witness who says they saw no violence of any sort.

@globeandmail Magas is saying that in regards to the affidavits from the class action, the court needs to take into account that the plaintiffs in that civil/class action claim have a "vested interest" in maximizing the appearance of damage -- they have a stake beyond just noise.

@globeandmail Magas now cites an affidavit from Lich that the protest brought many people, she didn't know all of them personally. Cites a letter she says is from Mayor Jim Watson inviting them to move trucks so as to not block residential streets, and cites Lich moving "40 trucks"

Defence says there's context here -- but there's absolutely no context of violence.

Magas is opining now on the need of vigorous defence. "I'm not suggesting Justice Bourgeois is bias. But there is a reasonable apprehension of bias." -- as a Liberal canditate, Magas says, and in her decision.

She says the Bourgeois used the term "our" -- including herself as the Justice -- extensively in her original Lich ruling. She cites a case about judicial bias now: "Judges should disqualify themselves in any case in which a reasonable, fairminded person ...

... would see a conflict between a judge's interest and a judge's duty."

#tamaralich

To raise that point, Magas says Justice Bourgeois talks about "our community," "our city," "our local police force," "our community" twice more. "I cannot be reassured that if I release you into our community, you will not reoffend..."

"It's very personal."

Magas' point is that Justice Bourgeois was inserting herself into the decision, making it personal, making herself a part of the community rather than a dispassionate adjudicator of the law.

Again, Magas' argument, not mine. That's what she's driving at here.

"To a reasonable observer, it is very close, if a justice feels impacted, in our community, in her community -- she should not sit. It should be an out-of-town judge. If they feel they've been impacted, they should not sit. So at least the appearance of bias ... is respected."

Magas cites another supreme court case about bias, but kind of trails off as to line she was drawing from that. Anyway, it was this one:

scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-cs…

Magas says bail de novo from the praise of Justin Trudeau towards Justice Bourgeois.

Magas also says Bourgeois "concluded Lich is guilty." Cites Bourgeois saying Lich took part in and lead the blockades.

Defence says what the Crown & Bourgeois used to allege that are just the words "hold the line," which could mean anything, including lawful protests.

"There's a difference between lawful protest and blocking the street, which could be mischief," defence says.

"Hold the line could mean ... continue to protest," Magas says.

#tamaralich #lichbail #lich #TruckerConvoy

"But at that point in time, the city, the province had declared a state of emergency," Justice Johnston says. "They would be laying charges."

"But they have to lay the proper charges," Magas replies.

"I don't see the officer reading her rights -- that will be an issue -- but she is charged on Feb 17 with a counselling count," Magas says.

Magas goes on to say the counsel mischief count hadn't resulted in mischief being commited. She cites this as a matter of actus reus (guilty act).

Magas says Bourgeois (improperly) found that the mischief had actually been committed.

Magas says other counts were only tacked on after Lich had already been in the jail. "They propose to change the counseling count wording," Magas says. "We're 14 days after Ms. Lich has been arrested ... it's a little too late to amend the counts to say you're properly charged."

Magas says that after the destruction from G20, those G20 Black Bloc protesters got minimal sentencing -- the days, months she'd cited early.

Says it's inappropriate for the Crown to claim Lich would be facing comparatively harsher sentences.

Justice Johnston is now asking about the bias appreheneded re: Justice Bourgeois. Is it the fact that Justin Trudeau made a compliment, that she was a Liberal candidate?

"It was all of that," Magas replies to His Honour.
"What if in a previous life, the judge had been in another party," His Honour asks.

Magas says that no party should be involved at all. Justice Johnston says he understand that politics must be left out of it, be dealt with dispassionately.

Justice is asking how that bias works -- Trudeau didn't appoint Bourgeois, she's a provincial appointee, etc.

Magas is emphasizing that this is about a reasonable apprehension of bias and should have been raised.

#tamaralich

Defence is acknowledging that Barber was released after appearing before Bourgeois, but says that Bourgeois found completely different for Barber, that that discrepancy is surprising.

The defence says that this whole issue is just "one additional point" on the entire ground of the bail review.

"It's certainly not suggested by me that there's actual bias, it's more to the reasonable person test," Magas says.

#tamaralich #lichbail #truckerconvoy

"Justice Bourgeois did not address ... the mischief charge" and the strength of the Crown's case. She's talking about Lich's mischief charge, not the counsel mischief charge. She says Bourgeois looked at the strength of only one charge in the crown's case.

Defence submits that there's other reasonable inferences for the phrase "hold the line" (such as continuing the lawful protest) rather than "hold the line" meaning "leave the trucks on the street"

Magas says the Crown's case is not strong there.

"If there's more than one inference ... a person must be acquitted." There must only be one reasonable inference, only one, for guilt to be found there, she says.

Magas since there's more than one inference to be drawn from 'hold the line,' it weakens the Crown's case.

Bourgeois erred in law about Lich's risk to reoffend. Says that it was based on her short answers, such as answering "yes" to being asked if Lich would return home.

"She doesn't need to say more," Magas says.

#tamaralich #lichbail #truckerconvoy

Magas says that in Barber's case (Magas emphasizes Barber faced four counts, Lich two) that he was released when giving similarly short answers.

"We're talking about the same protests. Both are alleged to be organizers or leaders, both not having a criminal record. ... but she finds me client has a substantial risk to reoffend," Magas says.

#tamaralich #lichbail #truckerconvoy2022

Magas suggests Bourgeois also made an error of law because Lich doesn't have a substantial risk that she will "endanger the community" -- that is, Lich never engaged in violence. Magas is saying EVEN IF Lich does reoffend, it won't be a noxious, society-endangering offence.

Magas says Bourgeois suggested it was secretive and mysterious how Lich would return home. "But the evidence on the record before her honour ... was that Lich had faced some deaththreats, so some personal information would not be revealed during the public hearing."

Magas now quotes herself on the record then, that one of the lawyers would be providing Lich a ride home to Alberta. Says Karimjee confirmed that as well back then.

"There's nothing mysterious or secretive," Magas says about Bourgeois interpretation.

"It's an officer of the court who would drive her home to Alberta, and somehow that's not good enough," Magas says. "That somehow makes her more substantially likely to reoffend. It does not. And that, in my submission is an error of law."

That's Magas's submission on the secondary grounds (reoffence).

She now discusses the tertiary ground (whether the bail decision would cause society to doubt the administration of justice).

Magas is arguing the Bourgeois' reasoning on the tertiary ground was a "subjective test".

Says St-Cloud has a defined spectrum, and it's about where the charge falls on that spectrum, with mischief at the low end, "and murder at the high end"

"In St-Cloud, at para 61, when the SCC talks about a set of circumstances surrounding the offence ... includes facts that the offence is violence, heinous, hateful, domestic violence, criminal gang, terrorist organization, or the victim was a vulnerable person," Magas says.

"We cannot hold the persons of Ottawa as a vulnerable person," Magas says. "Under St-Cloud, the circumstances are not on the serious end." She lists drug activity, gang activity.

She points out the Supreme Court says, and the Crown will say, it's not LIMITED to those.

But says that, typically, it is those kinds of cases that fall under those tertiary ground denial reasons.

Magas: "It cannot be said that the detention of Ms. Lich is necessary -- not just convenient to show and tell that you bother a city, you'll be detained, that's not the standard. This standard, if you look at it objectively, is not met. Not in these facts, not in these charges."

Magas quotes SCC in St-Cloud: "If a justice orders a detention where such an order is not justified" also lowers the public's view of the administration of justice.

"We have to look at a public who is not emotionally empowered, if I can put it that," she says.

She makes the point that the courts should not yield to social media chain reactions from people who don't have know the facts.

(This is also from the SCC)

That is, when considering the public's view of the admin of justice, it's not a public that's worked up, but calm.

Magas is saying Lich should have been released on her own recognizance. She emphasizes again that there's no violence. "If she doesn't follow the conditions, she's arrestable," Magas says.

#tamaralich #lichbail #lich

Defence says the proposed surety is adequate, and says Lich is prepared to follow the conditions, wants to go back home, go back to work.

"And now she's ready to go back home, and she's indicated so to the court. And there's no evidence she won't follow those conditions."

That's the defence's submissions.

We're taking a 15 minute break, then we'll hear from the Crown.

#tamaralich #lich #convoybail #truckerconvoy2022

As a reminder I'll use abbreviations (though rarer as we deal with submissions rather than examination)

Tamara (L)ich is appearing in the SJC before (J)ustice Johnston, with Moiz Karimjee for the (C)rown and Diane Magas for the (D)efence. Her proposed (S)urety has been a witness

Mic's off mute. Looking through old tweets at strain-induced typos is hilarious. "She says me client," rather than "my client."

For the record, Magas is not a pirate lawyer, though it would be kinda cool if she was.

Ok, looks like we're back. Should be hearing from the Crown now.

"The first point that the Crown would like to emphasize is ... based on the law and the facts, not emotion, 1. there is no material change in circumstance, nor in error of law, and were your honour to find a material change in circumstance or an error in law..."

"This is not a bail hearing, this is a bail review. My friend [Magas] needs to demonstrate a change in circumstances or an error in law," Karimjee begins.

He's now pulled up St-Cloud too. As a reminder, it's this case: scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-cs…

Here's what Karimjee is quoting: " . . . The weighing of relevant factors, the balancing process is what the exercise of discretion is all about. . . . Only if by emphasizing one factor or by not giving enough weight to another,

the trial judge exercises his or her discretion unreasonably should an appellate court interfere with the sentence on the ground the trial judge erred in principle."

"The court continues," Karimjee says, "Allow me to repeat that the accused has a right to be presumed innocent at the time of the release hearing, which is no longer the case at the time of sentencing."

"However, the passages reproduced above aptly convey the implications of a discretionary decision that involves the balancing of a number of factors," continuing to quote St-Cloud.

Then Karimjee's audio cuts off.

He starts again, "As I explained above, a decision with respect to release made on the basis of s. 515(10)(c) Cr. C. calls for the consideration of several factors that may be difficult to balance."

Karimjee says he's emphasizing the "difficult to balance" portion of that text, then continues: "This is a delicate exercise whose essence would be distorted if an open-ended discretion to review the initial release decision were to be conferred on the judge."

"As I mentioned above, I am of the opinion that ss. 520 and 521 Cr. C. do not provide for a de novo hearing. Thus, unless there is new evidence ... the reviewing judge is not in a better position than the justice to evaluate whether the detention of the accused is necessary."

"I therefore have difficulty seeing any possible justification for allowing a reviewing judge, at all times, to substitute his or her assessment of the various circumstances for that of the justice."

Karimjee finishes quoting St-Cloud, then says "It's very important for Your Honour to note this initial threshold needs to be crossed ... unless you find there was an error of law or material change in circumstances ... I submit the defence crosses neither."

Karimjee says he will now deal with the apprehension of the reasonable apprehension of bias. "I'm going to invite the court, that by raising this allegation, Lich has continued to display the attitude of the ends justify the means," he says.

"This reduces her credibility or should reduce her credibility in the eyes of the court," Karimjee says. "As your honour knows, a sitting judge cannot make public comments when allegations are made against him or her."

Karimjee calls Lich's allegations of bias baseless, says Lich's allegations that Bourgeois released Barber, "within 24 hours, went from a judge that was fair and impartial, to somehow raising a reasonable apprehension of bias."

"There is no basis in law," Karimjee says. Karimjee says it's not credible that Lich would ask for a new judge if she knew that.

Karimjee says that anybody had the "frivolous right" to ask for a new judge, it would have been the Crown.

?????????

That's all I'll say about that. Anyway.

Karimjee says that Bourgeois noted the evidence between Barber and Lich were different.

Karimjee asks the court to draw an adverse inference (ie to look poorly on Lich) on the basis of Lich's submission that she would have asked for a different judge.

Karimjee says that Magas' allegations that "our community" demonstrates bias on behalf of Bourgeois are unfounded, says the Supreme Court uses "Our Community."

He brings up a 2021 decision from the Ontario Court of Appeal, R v. Olvedi, to cite this.

canlii.org/en/on/onca/doc…

No wait, he's quoting Loor through Olvedi. Never mind, the cites are getting convoluted. He's basically saying that "our community" is frequently used by judges.

"This is not rocket science," Karimjee says. He says that the use of "our community" indicating bias has no merit in law or in fact.

Karimjee says he'll now move to the material change in circumstance. "It's important to note what our Supreme Court and Court of Appeal," Karimjee says, and now going back to St-Cloud for the 4 requirements in material change to circumstance.

Those are:

(1) The evidence should generally not be admitted if, by due diligence, it could have been adduced at trial

(2) The evidence must be relevant in the sense that it bears upon a decisive or potentially decisive issue in the trial.

(3) The evidence must be credible in the sense that it is reasonably capable of belief, and

(4) It must be such that if believed it could reasonably, when taken with the other evidence adduced at trial, be expected to have affected the result.

Those are again the reasons cited by St-Cloud to define a material change in circumstances. Karimjee says the fourth point is the most important, but...

Karimjee is now moving on to R. v. J.A.: "Where new evidence is submitted to demonstrate a material change in circumstances, that evidence should be considered together with the considerations that underpinned the ...

... first bail judge’s refusal of bail to determine whether the alleged change in circumstance is both material and relevant to the case at hand such that a hearing de novo is warranted"

ontariocourts.ca/decisions/2020…

"You're required to look at the reasons, your honour," Karimjee says. "It's not an abstract analysis."

"So what are those," Karimjee asks?

He pulls up the original Lich transcript for the reasons.

"I found your testimony to be guarded and your attitude almost obstructive," Karimjee says, quoting Bourgeois at the original Lich hearing.

#tamaralich #lich #truckerconvoy

Karimjee says that the facts were reasonable capable of supporting Bourgeois' finding (and emphasizes this is the standard -- not that Bourgeois arrived at the only finding possible)

"Then there's the whole reasonable apprehension of bias," Karimjee says. "A judge goes from being favourable to unfavourable within 24 hours."

Karimjee says nothing Lich said today changes Bourgeois' decision. He says that, to the contrary, it solidifies it.

#tamaralich #truckerbail #lich #truckerconvoy2022

Karimjee is now moving on to Lich's ability to leave Ottawa. Says that Lich could have rented a hotel room, could have taken the same charter back to AB.

Karimjee points to Bourgeois' ruling, citing that "I am not reassured by the limited, almost secretive and mysterious information that some unknown lawyer, at the 11th hour, literally minutes prior to counsel's subimssion on bail, has come forward to arrange for some unknown...

...person to drive to Ottawa from Alberta to transport you back to Alberta."

"And it was the 11th hour," Karimjee points out. He says the lawyer was on record with the civil litigation but didn't want to be publicly identified.

Karimjee says, in reference to "hold the line" being related to peaceful protest. Karimjee says unlawfulness is the "only inference" that can be drawn from it in the "totality of the evidence" of Lich's behaviour.

Karimjee says that civil disobedience was specifically mentioned. "Civil disobedience specifically involves breaking the law," Karimjee says.

(...Which I personally find rather chilling on the notion of civil disobediance)

Karimjee is now showing a video to the court. It's a TikTok video, emblazoned with the legend "Look who we found.."

It's taken on Wellington, at the protests. "Oh, Rideau, that's it, we're on Rideau."

"Oh, hey, look, that's Candice Bergen."

The audio in this TikTok is... barely audible. Hard to hear what's being said beyond muffles.

The camera turns, and Tamara Lich is there talking to protesters. She shakes hands with the camera man

Karimjee says that on the video, the trucks are blocking the street, that Lich says "get the word out" on the video (couldn't hear that through the muffled audio).

He says that proves that's the only inference to believe "hold the line" means "illegal blockade."

Karimjee cites a video from Feb 4, calling it alarming. "She invites police officers, members of the military, to follow their conscience and not follow orders to evacuate them," Karimjee says.

Justice Johnston jumps on that. He asks the date, then Karimjee confirms it's the fourth. "That's before the alleged offences, isn't it?"

"What she said in the past of what she said in the context of hold the line is formative of what she meant on subsequent occasions," Karimjee says.

Karimjee says that in several circumstances, Lich only told her followers about the protest, but not the accompanying injunction. He cites Bourgeois as saying that's misleading and disingenuous.

"The accused disobeyed the Ottawa city emergency, she stated openly civil disobedience, she openly said hold the line, she disobeyed the provincial emergeny, she disobeyed the federal emergency, and her evidence is somehow Your Honour's order will be special. How so?" says Crown.

Karimjee says that all this added up to Bourgeois not finding Lich credible and not likely to follow court conditions.

#tamaralich #lich #lichbail #truckerconvoy2022 #truckerbail

Crown says her old surety wasn't good enough, the proposed surety now is 20 minutes away, has a job, is occupied with their children.

"How is that a material change in circumstances?" Karimjee asks.

Crown asks how the plan could be enforced. "Phones can be easily purchased," he says. "You could buy one phone and show another phone."

"My friend has a big problem saying, how can her honour conclude that there's a substantial risk of reoffending when there's no criminal record? Well, her honour indicates..." Karimjee starts.

Karimjee continues that the Ottawa police, provincial, federal and municipal governments took steps to make the protest stop, but "despite those emergency measures ... you are counselling, publicly, to continue the occupation."

His Honour Johnston now, "How can I reconcile that point against Mr. Barber, who did much the same? ... They were both organizers, they both didn't have criminal records," Justice Johnston notes.

His Honour notes that he "suppose its a credibility issue."

Karimjee notes that the evidence between Barber and Lich was there.

Karimjee notes there's no "principle of parity in bail."

Karimjee says it would be "very unfair to the administration of justice based on evidence that was not adduced" at the previous hearing, because of an objection raised by the defence that limited him to "ten minutes," he says.

Karimjee is now quoting from R. v. Rondeau by way of R. v. Al Safi. "Rondeau links the nature of the offence adn the strength of the prosecutions case to the secondary ground. The allegations respect the index offence(s) are relevant to the accused person's future dangerousness."

"The strength of the Crown's case determines the weight that may be attribute to the index offence in this assesment. Although the accused person is presumed innocent, this cannot prevent a court from considering the nature of the offensive and the degree to which the evidence..

"...foreshadows the future of culpability."

He's saying that Lich's lack of criminal evidence, as a point of law, isn't the only link to a likelihood to reoffend.

the Crown now says that approving today's proposed surety is "to use a thief to supervise a burglar, because [they] post on February 19, that [they were] proud of [Lich] until she broke the law."

"On the secondary grounds, to really expect that somebody who supported the convoy movement, who supported [Lich] ... could ensure the safety of the community..." Karimjee says.

"Let's not forget the organizing and planning involved in this case," Karimjee says.

He flicks through the index on the screenshare, then pulls up "Freedom 2022 Human Rights and Freedoms" corporate records.

"She was one of the directors," Karimjee says, saying Lich was responsible for raising millions of dollars, making tens of thousands of withdraws.

"Ms. Lich was the brains," he says.

Karimjee says that the bail plan doesn't address what she can do on social media, suggests she could coordinate the "occupation of another city."

#tamaralich #lichbail #lich #truckerbail #TruckerConvoy2022

Karimjee says there isn't a material change in circumstance in regards to the tertiary ground (ie: whether the public would lose esteem in the adminstration of justice)

Karimjee says that saying the mischief Lich counselled never happened is irrelevant. "It's like somebody charged with attempted murder saying, 'release me, the crown proved a murder, I only attempted a murder.' "

Karimjee just said "humongous evidence" and I got distracted laughing. There's always a moment, every day, where something catches you off guard and distracts you.

Anyway.

Karimjee goes back to Bourgeois' finding, saying that Bourgeois found Lich was a leader of the convoy, that she counselled their behaviour of her "truckers and friends."

Karimjee is losing himself here, kinda rambling a bit trying to find his thoughts. You can tell it's getting really late into this trial.

The Crown is now citing R. v. Drainville, which I can't pull up. I'm sorry. The accused chosen form of expression constituting an unlawful act is not protected by the charter, in Drainville.

He goes on to quote Drainville again, that if an accused's chosen form of expression is unlawful, then it doesn't benefit from Charter protections under s.2(b)

Karimjee is now giving an example of him blockading His Honour's courtroom to compel an appeal or review, which is pretty funny.

Karimjee says that on the tertiary (public understanding) grounds, that Lich's bail would send a dangerous message to the human chain planners and the convoy planners that you can flagrantly disrespect the law.

"This is about the rule of law. This is not about politics," Karimjee says. He's said "rule of law" like 20 times in a minute.

People are getting tired.

We're back to Drainville and the blocking of roadways in Drainville, how blockades of roadways are unlawful and not charter protected.

"The danger with civil disobedience," Karimjee says, "is to permit this process to replace the 'rule of law' would be to grant permission to anyone to arrogate himself with the powers of a judge and determine for himself or herself, and from time-to-time, what is acceptable."

That second half is Karimjee quoting the ruling in Drainville.

"No court of law will find that blocking streets of Ottawa is lawful or should be constitutionally protected," Karimjee says. "But the danger in the court of releasing the accused is to send a message to the human chain people."

"All you know is the flagrant disobedience of the law by the accused, and a surety who is proud of that," the Crown says.

I'm going to take a break because oh my god. But give me like, three minutes. I'll be right back.

See? Three minutes. Told you so.

Anyway, the Crown is still going, so we've missed nothing. He's scrolling around, looking for what he wants to reference. It's R. v DeSousa, SCC 1992

The case Karimjee is currently referencing can be found here:

scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-cs…

Here's what Karimjee is quoting from DeSousa. It's long:

"Conduct may fortuitously result in more or less serious consequences depending on the circumstances in which the consequences arise. The same act of assault may injure one person but not another. ...

"...The implicit rationale of the law in this area is that it is acceptable to distinguish between criminal responsibility for equally reprehensible acts on the basis of the harm that is actually caused. ..."

"..This is reflected in the creation of higher maximum penalties for offences with more serious consequences. Courts and legislators acknowledge the harm actually caused by concluding that in otherwise equal cases a more serious consequence will dictate a more serious response."

Karimjee says that, in the gravity of the offence, Bourgeois was not wrong in considering the impact of the offences in determining the gravity of the offences, per what he just cited in DeSousa.

"It might now have been as obvious at this early stage in the case of Mr. Barber," Karimjee says about Bourgeois.

"What a fair judge," he adds.

The Crown says if political inclinations were at play, the judge would have detained Barber. Rather, because there was more evidence against Lich, Karimjee says, that's what affected Bourgeois' ruling.

"Her honour reminds herself that she's not dealing with an emotional public," Karimjee says about Bourgeois, nothing that Her Honour quoted St-Cloud herself, regarding a becalmed public. "It is with that public in mind that I come to the conclusion."

Karimjee again says one supporter of the convoy being asked to supervise another is like one thief being asked to supervise another.

"In conclusion, there is no material change in circumstance, there is no error in law. And in absence of those, your honour cannot conduct a de novo hearing," Karimjee says.

"My final submissions is that, should your honour find that your honour needs to conduct a fresh de novo hearing ... the need for the rule of law, and the example of your honour's court being blockaded if your honour renders a decision one party does not like..."

"... to maintain confidence in the administration of justice, Ms. Lich needs to be detained. She's looking at a lengthy jail sentence."

Karimjee says that his honour's order is not "special" and wouldn't be respected.

"Those are the submissions of the Crown," Karimjee concludes.

#tamaralich #lich #lichbail #truckerbail #convoybail

Magas for the defence is now responding. She says that the Crown saying the evidence in the Barber case wasn't before her, the evidence in the Barber case was a different case.

Magas is basically saying that, because Bourgeois happened to sit on two different cases, the Barber evidence was never entered in the Lich case. She's basically saying that effectively, Bourgeois could just as easily have been two different judges on Barber and Lich -- and that

if Bourgeois wanted to consider the evidence from the Barber case, it should have been entered into the Lich case, not just plucked from Bourgeois' memory.

Magas is now pointing out that people who are alleged to have breached the rule of the law do get released. She's saying the findings that the Crown cited were cases on their rights -- ie, from trials. Not bail hearings. She says that thieves, robbers, etc. who are brought

before the court aren't all universally detained simply by virtue of the mere accusation or allegation of having breached the law. They're tried in court.

Magas says the Crown cited DeSousa, is "totally .. and with all due respect ... is wrong in law."

She's arguing w/ the crown over the interpretation of St-Cloud, going back to her original spectrum argument, that a bail denial must be based on the severity of the crime alleged.

Magas says that Bourgeois finding that the evidence before her in Barber and Lich at the same time, was conducted without a proper evidentiary record of the Barber case in the Lich case.

Justice Johnston: "Just to remind you, counsel, it's getting late. This is reply, not a chance to reargue it."

Magas is saying at the time of the original organization, there was no unlawful acts and was organized partly with the cooperation of the place. "To suggest she organized that in advance to be an illegal blockade, that's no the evidence before the court."

"The Crown showed a document of money being disbursed. You can give no weight to that document," Magas says. "We don't even know the author of that document."

#tamaralich #lichbail #lich

Magas says she's not suggesting there's a material change, she's suggesting the judge made several errors in law on that point.

Magas is again hammering that the Barber evidence was not entered into the Lich case, so comparing the two without that was an error in law.

Magas is now replying to the fentanyl case about the use of other judges using "our community." Magas says she wouldn't have mentioned it if it had only been once. "But it was 12 times over eight pages," Magas says.

She also says it wasn't generic references to Canada, but specifically to "our streets."

Magas says the Crown confused Lich's statements about food, apples, oranges, bananas, and $7 a day -- she says it's confusion, there's no attempt to mislead.

The Defence replies to the allegation that there's no plan not to organize another protest. She says that there's a "broad enough" agreement not to participate in another protest.

"To suggest she'd use another phone... to suggest she'd organize another blockade or protest without anybody knowing..." Magas says.

Magas tells His Honour what would make his order special: conditions on the end that say Lich would be rearrested if Lich breaches the conditions.

"That's what makes it special," Magas says.

Magas says that the source of they money is middle-class folks, they're totally legitimate.

"That's my submissions," Magas wraps up.

"I'm not going to give a decision today," Justice Johnston says. He says his Perth schedule is jam-packed and can't address this on Thursday or Friday, either.

#tamaralich #lich #lichbail #truckerconvoy2022

"I apologize to counsel and Ms. Lich, I don't like putting these things over ... I'm suggesting we come Monday, I don't know what time," Justice Johnston stays.

#tamaralich #lich #lichbail

There's now haggling at when Lich can get from Ottawa-Carleton Detention Centre, Karimjee has commitments in the morning.

Magas suggests another Crown could attend to receive the ruling, but His Honour says this Crown is entitled to attend.

His Honour asks about afternoon. Magas says she's free all day, Karimjee says he's free in the afternoon.

"I'd give this priority and bump whatever else... I'd say 2 o'clock, I just don't know what else they've got in store for me," His Honour says.

#tamaralich

It's 5:30 p.m. and they're trying to get ahold of trial coordination.

"Maybe we can put it for 10, and then between now and Monday trial coordination can tell us what time," Magas says.

His Honour declines because of Karimjee's schedule. Says he has a preference for two.

"Thank you counsel for your submissions today. That's what I'm going to do. I'll face the consequences with trial coordination," His Honour says.

"Two o'clock, Monday. Thank you. Have a good evening."

We're done till then, folks.

#tamaralich #lich #lichbail #TruckersConvoy

Marathon, not a sprint.

Anyway as usual, here's the thread, all unrolled for you guys with thread reader.

@threadreaderapp unroll

Annnnnny minute now @threadreaderapp