PoliceOnGuardForThee

We couldn’t agree more!!

The Justice Centre announces the launch of a national petition calling upon all Members of Parliament to defeat Bill C-22 - legislation that will significantly expand government surveillance powers. If passed into law, Bill C-22 will empower the federal government to order electronic service providers to: - develop capacity for extracting and organizing Canadians’ data for government and law enforcement review - install devices that allow government and law enforcement to access Canadians’ data - retain Canadians’ data for up to one year Take action today: sign our national petition and help us stop government surveillance of Canadians: jccf.ca/stop-bill-c-22… Read the full story here: jccf.ca/justice-centre… (Photo credit: The Canadian Press/Spencer Colby)

Insanity!

Disappointed with the decision but glad to hear an appeal is in the works. Looking forward to the next steps @adamsonbarbecue

What absolute nonsense!! This government and court system will stop at nothing to prosecute anyone who dared to speak out!!

The hearing in Evely v Nova Scotia has concluded in Halifax, with Justice Campbell reserving his decision on this very important case which will help define the protection for Canadians' freedom of movement. It is a privilege for my co counsel Allison Pejovic and I to represent @JeffEvely, thanks to the donors to the @JCCFCanada.

This is extremely disturbing!! Especially with the overwhelming evidence with the lack of efficacy or safety of the vaccine. Not to mention the complete abandonment of those who have been vaccine injured like @kcpollock

It shouldn’t come as a surprise that the federal government waited until the last possible moment to appeal the Emergencies Act decision. In January 2026, the Federal Court of Appeal dismissed the government’s appeal, upholding an earlier ruling that the 2022 invocation of the Emergencies Act was unreasonable and unconstitutional. That leaves the government having lost at both the Federal Court (2024) and the Federal Court of Appeal (2026). On March 17th, 2026, the government filed an application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada. What happens next is straightforward: the Supreme Court must decide whether to grant leave—meaning whether it will agree to hear the case. If it declines, the lower court rulings stand; if it agrees, the case moves forward to a full appeal. Stay tuned for updates on the progress on the appeal.

In a unified stand for constitutional rights, the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms (JCCF) has moved to stop a $290 million class-action lawsuit targeting Freedom Convoy participants, citing egregious procedural misconduct undermining justice and free expression. The lawsuit, originally filed in February of 2022 by Ottawa residents Zexi Li, Geoffrey Delaney, Happy Goat Coffee Company, and a local union, accuses convoy organizers (Chris Barber and Tamara Lich among others) and donors of causing nuisance through peaceful protests against covid mandates. Many argue that this massive claim is a direct and calculated assault on our right to assemble and speak out against government overreach, potentially chilling future dissent. At the heart of the motion are the actions of Paul Champs, lawyer for the plaintiffs, and his failure to disclose a secret settlement with one defendant, Chad Eros, finalized in April of 2024. The self-represented Mr. Eros agreed to pay $60,000, provide documents, an affidavit, and testimony against co-defendants in exchange for release; conditions that effectively turn him into a cooperating witness. Ontario rules mandate immediate disclosure to ensure transparency, yet this agreement was kept hidden for 22 months, until January 2026. JCCF lawyers argue that "This non-disclosure is an abuse of process," explaining that it prejudices preparations and violates fair trial principles. Granting a permanent stay would safeguard individual freedoms from manipulative litigation tactics. Currently, this motion awaits a hearing; updates will follow. The Freedom Convoy was truly a historic expression of democratic rights, highlighting the immense overreach of the lockdowns. It remains an event of epic proportions, accomplished by hardworking Canadians who demanded to be heard. We will always stand with those who peacefully participated in and supported the Freedom Convoy, and who support the inalienable rights and freedoms of all Canadians. To read the update from The Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms, click the link; jccf.ca/court-motion-s…

The Justice Centre announces that lawyers will appear in the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia on behalf of Jeffrey Evely starting Tuesday, March 17, 2026, challenging the Province’s 2025 walking in the woods ban. The hearing is scheduled to begin at 9:30 a.m. AT in Halifax, at the courthouse located at 1815 Upper Water Street, in courtroom 703, before Justice Campbell. Three days have been scheduled for the hearing from March 17 to March 19, 2026. The proceedings are open to the public for in-person attendance, but virtual access will not be available. Constitutional lawyer Marty Moore said, “There are serious legal and constitutional issues with the decision of Nova Scotia to completely ban its citizens from being in more than 75 percent of the Province, ostensibly to protect the woods.” Read the full story here: jccf.ca/supreme-court-… To support important cases like this, please consider making a tax-deductible donation to the Justice Centre here: jccf.kindful.com

Last night, the Liberals, backed by the Bloc Québécois, voted in FAVOUR and shut down debate on Bill C-9! Despite months of testimony at committee and serious concerns raised by faith leaders and religious communities across Canada about removing a long-standing religious safeguard in the Criminal Code, the Liberal government is choosing to FORCE Bill C-9 forward. Conservatives proposed a reasonable solution: move forward on the provisions with broad support while giving MPs the time needed to properly examine the removal of the religious exemption. The government refused. When legislation affects freedom of religion and freedom of expression, debate should never be silenced by the government. theglobeandmail.com/politics/artic…

The Liberals are attempting to push Bill C-9 through Parliament, putting Canadians’ freedom of religion and freedom of expression at risk. This bill removes an important legal safeguard that protects people of faith when quoting their own sacred texts — a protection the Supreme Court recognized as essential to keeping Canada’s hate-speech laws constitutional. Removing this safeguard will not make Canadians safer. Instead, it risks exposing people of faith to prosecution simply for expressing their sincerely held beliefs. Canadians deserve legislation that protects both safety and fundamental freedoms — not a rushed bill that undermines them. The government must not be allowed to silence debate when fundamental freedoms are at stake.

Another landmark decision further demonstrates how our federal government overstepped their boundaries and authority by placing unreasonable restrictions on the individual rights and freedoms of Canadians. We are all intimately familiar with the 2021 Covid-19 mandate imposed on employees across the country, forcing them to be fully vaccinated (two vaccines), spend significant effort justifying why their rights deserve respect or be removed from their jobs entirely. Most of those who applied for exemption, for medical reasons or due to sincerely held religious beliefs, were denied without sufficient reason or even a sincere review. Mathieu Lemay, a federal employee of 15 years, was one of thousands in this frustrating situation, with numerous emails and communications legitimately questioning the decision of his employer and demanding their justification. With full support from the unions who were supposed to protect employees against such overreach, he was placed on leave without pay for noncompliance, only to be invited back months later when the mandate had lifted, as though nothing unusual had happened. The government offered no acknowledgement for the damages suffered by these individuals: the complete loss of income, social stigmatization, and systematic destruction of their professional reputation. But life goes on, right? At least you have your job back. No. Mathieu Lemay refused to accept that his suffering should be swept under the carpet. He took his case to the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations Board where the adjudicator, Christopher Rootham, ruled “that [Mr. Lemay] is entitled to damages of $5000 under s.53(2)(e) of the Canadian Human Rights Act.” An amount chosen to represent his pain and suffering over the “loss of dignity and self-worth” incurred by being “placed on leave without pay.” Rootham further order the employer to provide backpay for the entire period of leave, including benefits. As reported by Epoch Times, the justification Mr. Lemay offered, in an effort to demonstrate his “sincerely held religious beliefs” detailed his belief in God’s superiority over man-made creations, stating that his faith “dictates that [he] cannot use medicine…when it is not absolutely necessary to sustain [his] life, as it shows no faith in God’s power to heal.” Mr. Lemay went on to say that his employer “perverted the nature of employment” by reducing it to compliance with a policy that infringed on his beliefs. This ruling affirms the protections enshrined in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and as highlighted by the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms (JCCF), “sends a clear message that Charter rights cannot be overridden by blanket mandates”. The decision echoes other significant critiques of the vaccine policies, like those of the Canadian Armed Forces, where mandates were deemed unconstitutional under Section 7 of the Charter, violating rights to life, liberty, and security of the person. And yet others agree that this decision also bolsters Section 2(a), our freedoms of conscience and religion, protecting Canadians from forced medical decisions against their beliefs and safeguarding bodily autonomy. Many cases remain active, awaiting their own just decision. One such case is our own. We at Police on Guard (POG) have spearheaded the largest lawsuit to date addressing the vaccine mandate in the context of employment. This recent decision brings renewed hope for a win in favour of those who stood up against government overreach, with respect to forcing the covid vaccine. With our case and the many others, we hope that those responsible for these pending judgements apply the same logic and understanding of the ultimate importance of our Charter Rights and Freedoms, and its rightful place in the lives and decisions of individual Canadians. We continue to stand strong for Canadians and our Charter, applauding both Mr. Lemay, for his determination, and the adjudicator in this case, for his just decision. We as Canadians should not have to continually justify our guaranteed rights against a government who refuses to acknowledge their own limitations. To read the decision, click the link; decisions.fpslreb-crtespf.gc.ca/fpslreb-crtesp…

There are many things in my life I would do differently or not do at all. Standing up against government tyranny will never be a conviction I lose or a regret I hold. My only regret of those 18 Days on the Border was that my resolve was at times weakened. Imperfect men & women took a stand against a government that had lost its way. This is something I will always be proud of, albeit how harsh the consequences have been. #iwillneverapologize

🚨 C-9 UPDATE 🚨 The Liberal government has introduced a motion to shut down debate on Bill C-9! Instead of allowing Parliament to fully examine the impacts of this legislation, the government is moving to limit discussion and rush it through the House. Today, I will be leading off debate in the House of Commons to stand up for Canadians. Legislation that touches on fundamental rights and freedoms deserves transparency and a full, open debate. 📢 Contact your local Liberal MP and tell them Canadians deserve an open and honest debate, not one shut down by the government.

The Justice Centre announces that lawyers have filed an appeal on behalf of Ottawa-area resident Evan Blackman, arguing that the freezing of his bank accounts under the federal government’s use of the Emergencies Act violated his rights under section 8 of the Charter, which protects Canadians against unreasonable search and seizure. Constitutional lawyer Chris Fleury said, “Freezing someone’s bank account is an extraordinary use of state power. When the government interferes with a person’s ability to access their own money, the courts must carefully examine whether those actions respected the protections guaranteed by the Charter.” Read the full story here: jccf.ca/appeal-seeks-s…

While others are acknowledging the damages caused by aggressively pushing gender ideologies on young children, here in Canada we are doubling down on the same policies, intent on forcing them on our children despite the growing evidence of their harm. In yet another ruling undermining our fundamental freedoms, the BC Human Rights Tribunal, acting on complaints from the Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE) Local 411, have ordered a former school trustee to pay an unprecedented $750,000 penalty for the crime of voicing his concerns over gender ideology in schools. Barry Neufeld, a long-time educator and school trustee in Chilliwack BC, sparked controversy in 2017 by publicly criticizing components of the SOGI 123 program. For those unfamiliar: SOGI stands for Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity. SOGI 123 is a package of LGBTQ-specific policies, procedures and curriculum supplements developed by Vancouver-based ARC Foundation. While not mandatory, BC teachers are highly encouraged to apply SOGI 123 curriculum in their classrooms, pushing for it to be imbedded in every subject. Representing Mr. Neufeld is the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms (JCCF). John Carpay, president of JCCF, explains; “This case involves freedom of expression and parental rights in education, both of them Charter rights.” Mr. Neufeld was vocal about his concerns, comparing gender-affirming practices to "child abuse" and warning that these practices could confuse vulnerable youth. His opinions were rooted in traditional beliefs and science, and aimed at policy critique, not personal attacks; a distinction protected by our Charter. Regardless, the tribunal chose to side with the Chilliwack Teachers Association, labelling his remarks discriminatory and saying that they expose LGBTQ+ individuals to hatred and "poisoning" in school workplaces. The tribunal awarded $750,000 for "injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect" among LGBTQ+ educators, and an additional $442 in lost wages for one specific complainant. This decision, handed down February 18th, not only acts to cripple Mr. Neufeld financially but poses a grave threat to the guarantee of freedom of expression under Section 2(b) of our Charter of Rights and Freedoms, as well as undermining the incredibly important roll of parents in the education of their children. JCCF shared a written statement from Mr. Neufeld: “I am interested and invested in all students receiving an excellent education regardless of their sexual orientation, gender identity, race, religion or other group identity. I support a safe environment for all students in our public education system, and I support a diverse and pluralistic education system, which includes children who come from homes with traditional family values or faith-based beliefs regarding marriage, sexuality, and gender. I have simply taken issue with one facet of the SOGI 123 learning resources: the teaching of the theory, as if it was fact, that gender is fluid, that there are more than two genders, and that gender is not based in biology.” He continues, stating “It is my duty as an elected School Board official to speak up when the best interests of children may be compromised,” adding “I will continue to do my duty as Trustee in this regard, while exercising my constitutional freedom of expression as a Canadian”. Such logic and science-based arguments used to form the cornerstone of our society and the knowledge we impart to our children, but Canada, and specifically BC, have pushed so far into the realm of protecting feelings and emotions that logic has taken a backseat to their brazen virtue signalling. Even internationally, critics label DEI mandates as human rights infringements when they compel speech or suppress views. The impacts of this decision are concerning. From chilling free speech, for fear of financial and reputational ruin, to polarization; the result of programs being shielded from scrutiny by overreaching DEI policies. And the institutional overreach; tribunals and regulators expanding their scope beyond cases of actual discrimination to policing our opinions. A 2013 Supreme Court of Canada case, Whatcott v. Saskatchewan (Human Rights Commission), struck down overly broad definitions banning speech that “ridicules, belittles or affronts dignity” as unconstitutional. The court refined the hate speech test as speech that must expose protected groups to “detestation and vilification” leading to discrimination, not just offense; a ruling that balances protections against hate with free speech; emphasizing that sincere beliefs, even if offensive, are not automatically hateful unless they promote extreme harm. In Mr. Neufeld’s case, the tribunal has overstepped by equating dissent with hate. According to James Kitchen, formerly with JCCF, a judicial review will be filed with the BC Supreme Court in the coming weeks. Canadians need to speak up and demand more of our justice system, with stronger Charter protections and clearer guidelines on tribunal powers to prevent such punitive overreach from silencing our voices on education and family values. Our freedoms hang in the balance while our Charter demands better. To read The Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms release, click the link; jccf.ca/release-justic…

🚗 Canada’s Supreme Court has affirmed that Charter mobility rights protect Canadians’ freedom to travel between provinces, even during times of crisis (real or manufactured). This is a crucial restoration of civil liberties, secured after years of legal resistance against "pandemic"-era overreach. Watch the conversation in full at drtrozzi.news/p/wins-of-the-…

BIG day for Canada tomorrow! Adam Skelly, one of the first business owners to stand against draconian lockdowns, is finally getting his day in court. This is more than one man’s case… it may be the last real opportunity to challenge the government’s 'COVID'-era actions. He put his neck out, the least we can do is bear witness, either in person or via Zoom. 🗓 Hearings: Feb 25 (Skelly) Feb 26 (Province) Feb 27 (City) 📍 In person: Courtroom 8-5, 330 University Ave 💻 Watch online (register): ca01web.zoom.us/webinar/regist… If you want to support Mr. Skelly, click on the following link: givesendgo.com/bbq_rebellion?…