TL;DR: In a recent hearing at the Ontario Court of Justice, Joshua Peters and Eric L. Bueckert, participants in the Freedom Convoy protest, received their sentences after pleading guilty to acts of mischief. Both were granted absolute discharges with minor differences in their cases, setting important precedents for future convoy protest-related sentencing.
On May 25th, 2023, the Ontario Court of Justice at the Ottawa Courthouse was the setting for a significant sentencing hearing. This hearing provided clarity over the legal consequences related to participation in the Freedom Convoy protests for two individuals facing charges.
Presiding over the case was Justice Norman Douglas Boxall, who deliberated on the sentence of Joshua Peters and Eric L. Bueckert. Both individuals had previously entered pleas of guilt in relation to mischief charges, stemming from their respective roles in the "Freedom Convoy 2022" demonstration.
The proceedings, although delayed, commenced with Justice Boxall confirming both parties' ability to hear him via a hand-raise signal.
In outlining the case, Justice Boxall explained that both Mr. Peters and Mr. Bueckert. were present in a truck on February 18th, 2022 when the police attempted to clear the area. Despite their participation, he noted there was no evidence to suggest either man had taken on a leadership role or "virtually encouraged others to get involved".
For Mr. Peters, the Crown's position was for a conditional discharge, whereas the defense sought an absolute discharge. In the case of Mr. Bueckert, the Crown was agreeable to a conditional discharge if the accused made a donation to a registered charity.
Bueckert made a donation to the Vanier Community Church. However, this organization’s involvement in supporting participants of the Freedom Convoy raised some concerns for the Crown.
Justice Boxall proceeded to handle Mr. Peters's case first, elaborating on the positions of both the Crown and the defense. The Crown argued for a conditional discharge on the grounds of its potential for deterrence, whereas the defense maintained that an absolute discharge would be in Mr. Peters's best interest.
Justice Boxall touched on the principle of parity - the notion that the sentence for Mr. Peters should align with sentences given to other individuals convicted of offences connected to the Freedom Convoy. He affirmed that a conditional discharge, rather than an absolute discharge, could provide an added deterrent effect.
This is especially the case for conditional discharges granted alongside probationary terms, which typically necessitate offenders to fulfill certain obligations, such as performing community service or attending counselling. This effectively means that offenders 'earn' their discharge over time, which in itself serves as a significant deterrent.
The Justice noted that there's a "significant deterrent effect of being arrested, fingerprinted, appearing in court and entering a public plea of guilt." Furthermore, Mr. Peters' charitable donation of $2000, equivalent to roughly 80 hours of community service, was noted.
Justice Boxall highlighted that there were "no suggestions from the Crown for probationary terms that would require Mr. Peters to earn his discharge over time".
He accepted that Mr. Peters initially engaged in a "lawful protest", but "overstayed", leading to his criminal charge.
Denunciation and deterrence, the Justice maintained, remain important considerations in all cases. However, in this specific situation - given Mr. Peters' non-leadership role, "original intent" to participate in a lawful protest, and the lack of evidence suggesting otherwise - the importance of deterrence is lessened. This was recognized to a certain extent by the Crown in agreeing to a discharge.
Justice Boxall explained that probation is primarily imposed for rehabilitative purposes. He found no indication of a need for rehabilitation for Mr. Peters, a 29-year-old with no criminal record, who is well-educated and "able to be well employed". Additionally, he noted potential negative impacts of probationary conditions on Mr. Peters, including possible effects on specific "types of employment and travel".
Parity, however, presents a challenge as local judges, including Justice Boxall himself, have granted both conditional and absolute discharges in different cases. In this particular case, considering the potential negative consequences and minimal impact on denunciation and deterrence, he found probation unnecessary for rehabilitation.
Justice Boxall deemed that the appropriate outcome for Mr. Peters was an absolute discharge.
Justice Boxall then turned his attention to Eric L. Bueckert.
The case of Mr. Bueckert introduced another layer of complexity.
The Crown argued that a distinguishing factor between the two men was the recipient of Mr. Bueckert's donation: the Vanier Community Church.
Justice Boxall noted that the Crown submitted that this organization had provided considerable support to the Freedom Convoy, and thus, the donation might not provide an "appropriate deterrence" or could indicate a "diminished acceptance of responsibility".
Justice Boxall acknowledged the Crown's submission that the church had "supplied support to the convoy", but also noted that the church is a registered charity and that "it does do some good work in the community", well beyond its association with the convoy. Given the lack of evidence that the church's support of the convoy extended beyond assisting a legitimate protest, Justice Boxall concluded that the specific choice of charity was not a substantial issue.
While the choice of donation recipient raised questions, Justice Boxall pointed out that in a democracy, freedom of expression, including political dissent, is valued.
"Mr. Bueckert does not regret his involvement with the Freedom Convoy, nor should I view that as an aggravating circumstance. Law-abiding peaceful protests are hallmarks of Democracy. Peaceful, law-abiding protests are, after all, cornerstones of a democratic society", concluded Justice Boxall.
The unlawful action for which Mr. Bueckert took responsibility was the manner and duration of the protest, which unlawfully infringed on the rights and freedoms of others.
Justice Boxall expressed that any concerns raised by the donation to the Vanier Community Church could have been sidestepped with a donation to a different charity. However, based on the information he had, he wasn't prepared to treat Mr. Bueckert's case differently from Mr. Peters' due to the choice of donation recipient.
Turning his attention to Mr. Bueckert's personal circumstances, Justice Boxall noted that he is a 31-year-old, "pro-social man on a farm" with no criminal record, who has a family. In this case, he stated that the principle of parity should be upheld - Mr. Peters and Mr. Bueckert should be treated the same, resulting in absolute discharges for both.
Concluding the proceedings, Justice Boxall imposed a $100 victim fine surcharge on both men, to be paid within three months. He noted that this charge does not equate to a criminal record and reiterated that both Mr. Peters and Mr. Bueckert had been granted absolute discharges. The remaining charges against both men were subsequently withdrawn by the Crown, concluding the matter.
Will these rulings set a precedent for similar cases in the future?
Only time will tell.
- The Court Cat
Please note: The author has not reached out to the counsel of Joshua Peters and Eric L. Bueckert, or the accused individuals themselves, for comment on this piece. If anyone involved in the case or anyone else who reads this piece has concerns about accuracy, wishes to provide insights, or has recommendations for other cases to follow, please reach out via email at [email protected].
If you found this article useful and informative, consider subscribing to the newsletter—it's free. For those who wish to further support in-depth reporting on court proceedings, there is also a paid subscription option available. Your support goes a long way in maintaining the quality of this journalistic endeavour.