Barber’s Lawyer Says Crown Request to Seize Truck Has ‘Never Happened Before’ in Case Law 

As legal discussions around the potential seizure of Freedom Convoy leader Chris Barber’s truck are set to continue, his lawyer says there is no legal precedent for an item to be forfeited when it has not previously been seized.

“The thing is, this has never happened before,” Brendan Miller told The Epoch Times. “There has never been known [cases] that forfeiture has occurred where the item in issue has not been seized or subject to restraint, because the Criminal Code doesn’t contemplate it.” 

Barber and Tamara Lich, the main organizers of the 2022 Freedom Convoy protest against COVID-19 vaccine mandates and other pandemic measures, were found guilty of mischief in April. Barber was additionally found guilty of counselling others to disobey a court order.

On Oct. 7, the two were sentenced to 18-month conditional sentences to be served at home. The Crown had sought seven years of imprisonment for Lich and eight years for Barber.

During the trial, the Crown had argued that the convoy protest had “very vast” impacts on the downtown Ottawa community and that the Crown’s proposed sentencing “accounts for the harm done.”

Crown prosecutors are still attempting to seize and auction off Barber’s truck, “Big Red,” which he used to travel from Saskatchewan to Ottawa for the protest. Barber has said that the vehicle is his primary source of income, and Barber’s family members have filed applications as interested third parties seeking to prevent the loss of the truck.

In addition to representing Barber’s business, C.B. Trucking Ltd., Miller is arguing in court on behalf of Springbank Farms Inc., which is the farm owned by Barber’s parents. Miller said Springbank Farms owns the truck and Barber’s parents are “innocent third parties” in the case.

Miller said that typically during forfeiture hearings, the item or property in question has already been previously seized or subject to a restraint order. He said the Crown could have issued a restraint order for the truck when Barber was arrested in February 2022, but did not.

“For three years and two months, there was no claim for forfeiture of that truck. … So our position is that without a restraint order or actual seizure, the Criminal Code does not permit this forfeiture hearing to even have occurred,” Miller said.

Miller also said the truck is no longer owned by Barber’s business, which further complicates the Crown’s attempts to seize it. Barber’s bank account was frozen due to the invocation of the Emergencies Act, but he wanted to buy a new truck for his son so he sold Big Red to his parents’ business to obtain collateral. 

Miller said he is also arguing that because the truck was transferred from C.B. Trucking to Springbank Farms Ltd., there is no jurisdiction to “set aside a transfer of property with a third party.” He said there is “no basis on the facts to take the truck” because Springbank Farms had no involvement in the offence.

During a hearing on Sept. 12, Crown attorney Tim Radcliffe argued that the Criminal Code allows for the court to order forfeiture of property, even if it was not previously seized.

Radcliffe also said the fact that the truck was being used as collateral on a family loan does not block forfeiture, but merely shifts the analysis to third-party relief provisions. Additionally, Radcliffe said that from the Crown’s perspective, returning the property to “innocent third parties” is optional, as the Criminal Code uses the phrase “may” in the context of returning property, and not the word “shall.”

Justice Heather Perkins-McVey, who handed Lich and Barber the 18-month conditional sentences this week, has said her decision on seizure of the truck will come sometime after late November when both sides are set to provide submissions on the matter.

The Crown prosecutor did not respond to an Epoch Times request for comment.