Defence Lawyer Says Crown Has No Grounds to Seize Freedom Convoy Organizer’s Truck ‘Big Red’

OTTAWA—A lawyer representing Freedom Convoy organizer Chris Barber argued in court that the Crown can’t seize Barber’s long-haul truck “Big Red,” as the property has been neither seized previously nor subject to a restraint order.

“This is a very strange thing that the Crown is trying to do. It makes no sense within the statutory scheme,” lawyer Brendan Miller said in an Ottawa court on Sept. 12.

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

In addition to seeking seven-plus years’ prison time for Barber and Lich, Crown prosecutors are seeking to seize and auction off Barber’s truck, which he used to travel from Saskatchewan to Ottawa. Barber has said that the vehicle is his primary source of income.

Barber’s family members have filed applications as interested third parties seeking to prevent the loss of the truck.

Miller said during the hearing that the Crown is arguing Big Red is the equivalent of a gang symbol by citing the “Hell’s Angels case,” where courts allowed property of the criminal gang to be seized because they were symbols and tools of organized crime. 

“What the Crown is trying to do with their application is give this court jurisdiction over symbols that are not part of organized crime,” he says.

The defence lawyer said that in the Criminal Code of Canada, there is no ability to order a forfeiture when property has neither been seized nor subject to a restraint order. He added that Barber and his son acquired their property interests after the offence occurred, and did so in good faith.

Freedom Convoy Organizer Chris Barber used his long-haul truck “Big Red” to travel from Saskatchewan to Ottawa for the protest back in 2022. A hearing is now ongoing to determine whether he will need to forfeit it.

Back in April, Barber and Tamara Lich were found guilty of… pic.twitter.com/2kPvBDLMIt

— Matthew Horwood (@MatthewH_ET) September 12, 2025

Miller also noted that Big Red was used as collateral for CB Trucking Ltd, which Barber co-owns along with his son, to buy a new truck. On Sept. 4, Barber’s son was in a crash with another vehicle, and this new truck was a write-off. That vehicle is currently under an adjuster investigation, and it is not known whether there will be insurance coverage.

Crown Attorney Tim Radcliffe argued that “restraint and seizure are optional,” and the Criminal Code allows for the court to order forfeiture even without the property being previously seized.

Radcliffe said while the truck being collateral on a family loan engages third-party protections, this does not block forfeiture, but shifts the analysis to the third-party relief provisions.

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.”

Miller responded that Radcliffe’s argument was entirely premised on the word “may,” which he said is “just not proper statutory interpretation.”

The court will return on Sept. 22 to continue deliberating the issue, and the sentencing for Lich and Barber will occur in October.