Ottawa city officials changed idling bylaws from -5C to -15C during the Freedom Convoy in an admitted attempt to “freeze” people out, court heard Friday..Tamara Lich and Chris Barber, convoy organizers, are on trial facing six charges from the time of the demonstration, including counselling to commit offences not committed. Barber faces an additional charge of counselling to breach a court order. .The court heard from Crown witness Serge Arpin, former chief of staff for former Ottawa mayor Jim Watson, about his presence in a meeting where Ottawa officials signed a February 9, 2022 injunction to lower the freezing threshold for idling transport trucks. .Lawrence Greenspon, counsel to Lich, asked Arpin to clarify if the change in bylaw was an attempt to “freeze out” the people demonstrating in the “red zone.”.“[City] Council, at the February 7 meeting you were present for, was attempting to freeze out demonstrators in [the] area.” .Greenspon asked him to clarify if the bylaw was “directed at the demonstration zone.”.“It appears to be the intent,” Arpin said. .“I can't speak to intent of council,” Greenspon said. “You did a moment ago. I spoke to intent of bylaw. But you don't disagree with me that the effect of this bylaw was an attempt by the city council to freeze out the demonstrators in the red zone, correct?”."I believe that would be the outcome," Arpin said. .Arpin testified he attended every meeting the mayor had in 2022, and so he must have been present at the meeting about the injunction, but he may have “stepped out.”.When asked if he was “part of the decision,” Arpin said "No.”.He was further asked if the mayor approved of the bylaw, or just city council. .“Very rarely do bylaw changes come to the mayor. I was not consulted in this until it went to council and was adopted,” Arpin said. .Diane Magas, counsel for Barber, asked Arpin to confirm he was present at the meeting. .“Yes I would have been,” he replied. .“So you would have been present?” Magas repeats. .“Yes,” Arpin said. .Magas commented there “were a number of other by-laws for the protests.”.“There were [...] approved as a package,” Arpin said. .Arpin also testified he never received “direct knowledge as to why” the deal between Ottawa officials and the truckers was cancelled by Ottawa Police. .Witness testimonies in the trial so far show the convoy participants were prepared to move at the city’s request, and did indeed already begin to fulfill the agreement on February 12, 2022 when it was cancelled. .A February 16 text message to Arpin from Keith Wilson, former convoy lawyer, stated the trucks were “ready to move” to Wellington, but police blocked their path.."I know you share this goal has always been de-escalation,” Wilson texted Alpin just before 5 a.m. .Arpin told Wilson to “stand down,” and later apologized to him because of the failed agreement. .“So you admit that de-escalation was a priority?” Diane Magas, counsel to Barber, asked Arpin. .“Yes, I believe Wilson changed this goal,” Arpin said. .Magas asked Arpin why he apologized. .“Because we were trying to engage in a goodwill effort to remove trucks from the residential district," Arpin said. .“And for that to fail when we were liaising actively with the city manager to ensure that the city would collaborate to facilitate the movement of trucks,” Arpin testified, “I viewed that as a failure on our part to assist in the implementation of the goodwill arrangement.”.“I felt this was a failure by the city to act in goodwill to the agreement of February 12,” he added. .Arpin agrees that at the Public Order Emergency Commission (POEC) he testified there were “large swaths” of downtown that were empty as of February 14, and Bank Street was “completely cleared.” He added there were an additional several blocks “without any trucks.”.When asked how he came to the conclusions about the “large swaths” of empty streets with no trucks downtown, Arpin said it was based on photo evidence, not personal experience. .On Thursday he said he never followed up on whether the truckers fulfilled their end of the agreement before the police cancelled the deal.
Ottawa city officials changed idling bylaws from -5C to -15C during the Freedom Convoy in an admitted attempt to “freeze” people out, court heard Friday..Tamara Lich and Chris Barber, convoy organizers, are on trial facing six charges from the time of the demonstration, including counselling to commit offences not committed. Barber faces an additional charge of counselling to breach a court order. .The court heard from Crown witness Serge Arpin, former chief of staff for former Ottawa mayor Jim Watson, about his presence in a meeting where Ottawa officials signed a February 9, 2022 injunction to lower the freezing threshold for idling transport trucks. .Lawrence Greenspon, counsel to Lich, asked Arpin to clarify if the change in bylaw was an attempt to “freeze out” the people demonstrating in the “red zone.”.“[City] Council, at the February 7 meeting you were present for, was attempting to freeze out demonstrators in [the] area.” .Greenspon asked him to clarify if the bylaw was “directed at the demonstration zone.”.“It appears to be the intent,” Arpin said. .“I can't speak to intent of council,” Greenspon said. “You did a moment ago. I spoke to intent of bylaw. But you don't disagree with me that the effect of this bylaw was an attempt by the city council to freeze out the demonstrators in the red zone, correct?”."I believe that would be the outcome," Arpin said. .Arpin testified he attended every meeting the mayor had in 2022, and so he must have been present at the meeting about the injunction, but he may have “stepped out.”.When asked if he was “part of the decision,” Arpin said "No.”.He was further asked if the mayor approved of the bylaw, or just city council. .“Very rarely do bylaw changes come to the mayor. I was not consulted in this until it went to council and was adopted,” Arpin said. .Diane Magas, counsel for Barber, asked Arpin to confirm he was present at the meeting. .“Yes I would have been,” he replied. .“So you would have been present?” Magas repeats. .“Yes,” Arpin said. .Magas commented there “were a number of other by-laws for the protests.”.“There were [...] approved as a package,” Arpin said. .Arpin also testified he never received “direct knowledge as to why” the deal between Ottawa officials and the truckers was cancelled by Ottawa Police. .Witness testimonies in the trial so far show the convoy participants were prepared to move at the city’s request, and did indeed already begin to fulfill the agreement on February 12, 2022 when it was cancelled. .A February 16 text message to Arpin from Keith Wilson, former convoy lawyer, stated the trucks were “ready to move” to Wellington, but police blocked their path.."I know you share this goal has always been de-escalation,” Wilson texted Alpin just before 5 a.m. .Arpin told Wilson to “stand down,” and later apologized to him because of the failed agreement. .“So you admit that de-escalation was a priority?” Diane Magas, counsel to Barber, asked Arpin. .“Yes, I believe Wilson changed this goal,” Arpin said. .Magas asked Arpin why he apologized. .“Because we were trying to engage in a goodwill effort to remove trucks from the residential district," Arpin said. .“And for that to fail when we were liaising actively with the city manager to ensure that the city would collaborate to facilitate the movement of trucks,” Arpin testified, “I viewed that as a failure on our part to assist in the implementation of the goodwill arrangement.”.“I felt this was a failure by the city to act in goodwill to the agreement of February 12,” he added. .Arpin agrees that at the Public Order Emergency Commission (POEC) he testified there were “large swaths” of downtown that were empty as of February 14, and Bank Street was “completely cleared.” He added there were an additional several blocks “without any trucks.”.When asked how he came to the conclusions about the “large swaths” of empty streets with no trucks downtown, Arpin said it was based on photo evidence, not personal experience. .On Thursday he said he never followed up on whether the truckers fulfilled their end of the agreement before the police cancelled the deal.
