OTTAWA—Lawyers representing Freedom Convoy organizer Chris Barber continued arguing against the Crown’s attempts to seize his truck, with one lawyer saying Barber is seeking to have the Crown pay costs associated with its attempt.
Crown prosecutors are attempting to seize and auction off Barber’s truck, “Big Red,” which he used to travel from Saskatchewan to Ottawa in early 2022 for the Freedom Convoy protest. The demonstration was started to protest COVID-19 vaccine mandates and other pandemic measures.
Barber and fellow organizer Tamara Lich were found guilty of mischief earlier this year, and Barber was also found guilty of counselling others to disobey a court order. Lich and Barber were handed 18-month conditional sentences on Oct. 7, which include the serving of house arrest, a curfew, and community service.
Brendan Miller, who represents Barber’s business C.B. Trucking Ltd., told the court on Nov. 26 that the Crown does not have jurisdiction to seize Barber’s truck because the Crown failed to file a restraint order for it when Barber was arrested in February 2022. He said forfeiture hearings typically involve circumstances where a restraint order has already been issued for property.
In addition to representing Barber’s business, Miller is arguing in court on behalf of Springbank Farms Inc., which is the farm owned by Barber’s parents. Miller said there is no basis to seize the truck because Springbank Farms, which now owns the truck, had no involvement in Barber’s offence.
“Springbank Farms Inc. had nothing to do with that. … The means used was, with respect to the truck, by way of mischief, to the interference with property, they had no complicity in that,” Miller said, adding that the Crown and police were not aware of the existence of the company until September 2025.
Miller said while the Crown has also argued that Springbank Farms is not innocent because Barber’s parents sent money to him while he was in Ottawa, this action was not illegal and was not related to how the corporation used the truck.
Miller said the Crown had shown “negligence” by failing to initially get a restraint order for the truck in 2022. He said if the Crown had done this, then it would have had jurisdiction over the truck when C.B. Trucking Ltd. attempted to sell the truck to Springbank Farms Inc.
“The Crown didn’t do its job, and now my clients have been dragged through this proceeding when the Crown unequivocally knew all of these facts,” he said.
Barber’s lawyer Diane Magas argued that “Big Red” is not offence-related property, and even if the judge disagreed with this, seizing the property would be disproportionate.
Magas said because Ottawa police directed Barber where to park his truck during the protest, and he complied with the directives, the truck should not be seen as offence-related property.
Magas also said the judge should consider that Barber tried to work with police during the protest and had no criminal record, which are mitigating circumstances that must be considered.
“The impact of the forfeiture must be taken into account when determining if it is disproportionate in relation to the offense-related property,” Magas noted, saying that the truck is crucial to Barber’s trucking business and is the main source of income for his family.
Defence Argues for Costs
Miller said during the hearing that he is seeking for the Crown to pay costs to Springbank Farms Inc. if the judge rules in the defence’s favour when it comes to the seizure of Barber’s truck. Miller said the Crown had shown “gross negligence” by trying to attribute “criminal state of mind or complicity state of mind to Springbank Farms Inc.”
“My clients have been dragged through this since September 4 of 2025, to no fault of their own, and the only individuals at fault for this proceeding are the Crown,” Miller said, adding that the Crown should have gotten a restraint order in 2022.
Crown Attorney Tim Radcliffe previously argued that the Criminal Code allows for the court to order forfeiture even without the property being previously seized. He also said that the returning of 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.”
On Nov. 26, Radcliffe briefly pushed back against Miller’s arguments around costs, saying the Crown’s application is “anything but meritless” and the Crown has not shown a “hardball” attitude.
Justice Heather Perkins-McVey said all remaining legal submissions on the seizure application and entitlement to costs should be submitted in writing. Perkins-McVey said she would make her decision on the truck forfeiture and any costs on Dec. 19.
Friends Read Free
Copy
Facebook
Tweet
