Federal Court of Appeal Rules Emergencies Act Invocation Was Unlawful
Case Citation: Attorney General of Canada et al. v. Canadian Civil Liberties Association et al., 2026 FCA 6 (January 16, 2026)
Cast your mind back to the winter of 2022.
Canada was deep in the grip of pandemic restrictions. Vaccine mandates. Border closures. Lockdowns that seemed endless. Then came the trucks.
Thousands of them, rolling into Ottawa from every corner of the country. Horns blaring. Canadian flags flying. The “Freedom Convoy” had arrived—and for three weeks, it brought the nation’s capital to a standstill.
What happened next was unprecedented in Canadian history.
On February 14, 2022, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau invoked the Emergencies Act—a law that had never been used since it replaced the War Measures Act in 1988. Suddenly, the federal government claimed extraordinary powers: the authority to ban certain public assemblies, compel tow truck operators to move vehicles, order banks to freeze the accounts of certain people linked to the protest, and require financial institutions to share private financial information with the RCMP and CSIS. No warrant. No prior judicial authorization. No notice.
Accounts were frozen overnight. People couldn’t buy groceries. They couldn’t pay rent. They couldn’t access their own money.
The government said it was necessary. Civil liberties groups said it was unconstitutional.
Now, nearly four years later, Canada’s second-highest court has delivered its verdict.
The Federal Court of Appeal Has Spoken
On January 16, 2026, the Federal Court of Appeal unanimously held that the declaration of a public order emergency was unreasonable and therefore unlawful (ultra vires). The Court also held that parts of the emergency measures violated Charter rights—freedom of expression (section 2(b)) and protection against unreasonable search and seizure (section 8)—and were not justified.
The Court dismissed the Attorney General’s appeal of the 2024 Federal Court decision by Justice Richard Mosley, which had already found the government’s actions unjustified and in violation of Charter rights.
The reasons were issued per curiam as “The Court,” by the three-judge panel of Chief Justice Yves de Montigny, Justice J.B. Laskin, and Justice Anne Mactavish. The message was clear and unequivocal: the government overstepped.
What the Court Actually Found
1. The Statutory Threshold Was Never Met
The Emergencies Act sets a high bar. To invoke a “public order emergency,” Cabinet must have reasonable grounds to believe that a genuine threat to national security exists—one so serious it cannot be handled under any other Canadian law.
The Federal Court of Appeal confirmed that Cabinet did not have reasonable grounds to believe these requirements were met. The protests, while disruptive and disturbing, fell well short of the statutory threshold for “threats to the security of Canada” as defined in the CSIS Act.
Critically, the Court noted that CSIS’s own threat assessment did not identify a threat of serious violence—and that the government invoked the Emergencies Act before a requested alternative assessment could even be completed.
2. Two Charter Rights Were Violated
The Court confirmed that the government’s actions infringed two fundamental Charter rights:
Freedom of Expression (Section 2(b)): The emergency regulations unjustifiably restricted Canadians’ right to express themselves and support causes they believed in.
Protection Against Unreasonable Search and Seizure (Section 8): The Court found that the information-sharing provisions of the Economic Order (sections 5 and 6) violated section 8 of the Charter. These provisions required banks and financial institutions to disclose private financial information to the RCMP and CSIS without a warrant and without adequate safeguards—no prior authorization by a neutral decision-maker, and no notice to affected individuals. The Court stressed an important point: section 8 was not about the account-freezing power itself. The privacy problem came from the warrantless disclosure regime in sections 5 and 6.
The Court dismissed a cross-appeal on section 2(c) (freedom of peaceful assembly), finding that its section 2(b) analysis sufficiently addressed the related concerns. The Court cautioned that this result should not be read as an endorsement of Justice Mosley’s section 2(c) analysis.
What This Means If You Were Affected
If you had your bank account frozen, your donations seized, or your financial life turned upside down during the February 2022 crackdown, this ruling changes everything.
Two levels of court have now confirmed that the government acted unlawfully. That finding opens the door to civil claims for damages.
Lawsuits Are Already Underway
Several affected individuals have already filed lawsuits. Chris Barber, a Saskatchewan trucking-company owner and prominent convoy organizer, filed a statement of claim in the Court of King’s Bench alleging that the bank freezes breached his Charter rights.
His claim alleges concrete harms: inability to access money for basic necessities like food, fuel, and medicine; blocked automatic payments; loan and credit-card defaults; and lasting damage to his credit score. The statement of claim alleges the government’s actions were taken for the improper purpose of punishing protesters.
Other statements of claim seek punitive damages, alleging “malicious, reprehensible, and high-handed” misconduct by government defendants.
Note: These are allegations in court filings and have not yet been proven at trial.
Legal Grounds for Seeking Compensation
Affected individuals may have several potential avenues for civil claims:
Charter Damages Under Section 24(1)
The leading case is Vancouver (City) v. Ward, 2010 SCC 27, where the Supreme Court of Canada established a framework for awarding damages when the government violates Charter rights.
The court asks:
- Was there a Charter breach?
- Would damages serve the purposes of compensation, vindication, or deterrence?
- Are there countervailing factors (like “good governance” concerns) that weigh against an award?
- What is the appropriate amount?
Importantly, bad faith is not required. A proven Charter breach can justify damages even if government actors believed they were acting properly.
Misfeasance in Public Office
This tort applies when public officials knowingly exceed their authority in ways that harm citizens. Plaintiffs must show either: (a) targeted malice—conduct specifically intended to injure, or (b) knowledge that the official had no legal power to act and that harm was likely to result.
Claims Against Banks: A Significant Hurdle
Claims against financial institutions face a major obstacle. The Emergency Economic Measures Order included a civil-immunity clause (section 7) protecting entities that complied in good faith. Banks have argued they were legally obligated to comply with RCMP directives.
Any claim against a bank would need to demonstrate that the institution exceeded what good-faith compliance required—or advance alternative legal theories that circumvent the immunity provision.
Challenges Plaintiffs May Face
The “Good Governance” Defence
Courts recognize that governments must sometimes make difficult decisions under pressure. Under the Ward framework, the state can argue that awarding damages would chill legitimate government action. If this concern applies, plaintiffs may need to show the government’s conduct met a “minimum threshold of gravity”—such as clear disregard for Charter rights.
Modest Damage Awards Are Common
Charter damages in Canada have historically been modest. In Ward, the Supreme Court upheld just $5,000 for an unconstitutional strip search. Larger awards are possible in egregious cases, but courts balance individual compensation against public interests.
A Supreme Court Appeal Remains Possible
The Attorney General generally has 60 days (to about March 17, 2026) to seek leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada. Whether the federal government will pursue this remains unclear.
Standing Matters
Not everyone can sue. The Federal Court found that Canadian Frontline Nurses lacked standing because the emergency measures did not directly impact its members. Claimants must demonstrate they were personally and directly affected.
Procedural Considerations
If you are considering legal action, keep these factors in mind:
Limitation Periods: Civil claims have strict deadlines. In many provinces, the basic limitation period is two years, but the start date can be disputed, and different rules can apply when you sue the federal Crown. Because the freezes happened in February 2022, some claims may already be limitation-barred unless an exception applies. Get legal advice quickly.
Choice of Court: Claims against the federal Crown can often be brought in either the Federal Court or a provincial superior court. The choice of forum has strategic implications.
Notice Requirements: Depending on your jurisdiction and the defendants you’re suing, you may need to provide formal notice before commencing a lawsuit. Rules vary for federal, provincial, and municipal defendants.
Class Actions: Several class actions relating to the Emergencies Act account freezes are already underway. Joining an existing class action may be an option.
The Bottom Line
This ruling is historic.
For the first time, Canadian courts have drawn a clear line: emergency powers are not a blank cheque. The Emergencies Act imposes real legal thresholds, and governments must meet them with evidence—not fear, not political expediency, not frustration with protesters.
In plain terms, Cabinet must show real evidence that no other Canadian law can deal with the situation. The Court found the record did not support that claim.
For the thousands of Canadians who had their bank accounts frozen, their financial lives disrupted, and their Charter rights violated, this decision is vindication. But vindication alone doesn’t pay the bills or repair damaged credit.
Legal remedies may be available.
Were You Affected?
Did you have your bank account frozen during the February 2022 Emergencies Act measures?
Were you unable to access your own money—for groceries, rent, medication, or business expenses?
Did you suffer financial losses, damaged credit, or emotional distress as a result of the government’s actions?
If so, you may have a claim for compensation.
The Federal Court of Appeal has confirmed that the government acted unlawfully and violated Canadians’ Charter rights. If you were directly affected by the account freezes or other emergency measures, we encourage you to seek legal advice about your options.
Contact George Lee Law today for a confidential consultation.
We serve clients in English, Cantonese, and Mandarin throughout British Columbia and across Canada.
📞 604-681-1611
📧 info@gleelaw.com | 🌐 www.gleelaw.com
Legal Disclaimer
This article is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. The information provided is based on publicly available court decisions, news reports, and legal commentary as of January 2026. Laws and legal interpretations may change, and the application of law depends on the specific facts of each case.
Reading this article does not create a solicitor-client relationship between you and George Lee Law. Every legal situation is unique, and you should not rely on this information as a substitute for professional legal advice tailored to your circumstances.
If you believe you have a potential legal claim, you should consult with a qualified lawyer promptly. Limitation periods may apply, and delay could affect your legal rights.
The outcomes described in this article relate to judicial review proceedings challenging the lawfulness of the government’s actions. They do not guarantee any particular outcome in civil claims for damages, which involve different legal tests and evidentiary requirements.
Past results do not guarantee future outcomes.
George Lee Law | Vancouver, BC
Immigration • Family Law • Civil Litigation
Serving clients in English, Cantonese, and Mandarin