And an important one too. If it goes for the Truckers, it goes fine. If it goes against them, then the precedent is set, AND IT NEEDS TO BE USED, with EVERY POSSIBLE OBJECTIONABLE THING being brought for funds-freezing. To do otherwise would be to go against the law, after all.
Ezra Levant of Rebel News had an interesting legal breakdown of the legality of the order in Canada in the first place.
TL;DR - The Ontario government was able to get them an "ex parte" order to have the money seized, but the hearing was done in secret without the convoy's lawyers able to challenge the government's claims.
A legal requirement for such an order to be granted requires an indictable defense to have been committed directly related to those monies.
No trucker in Ontario has of yet been charged with anything criminal to date (the Ottawa police's BS mischief tickets for fueling trucks doesn't count), so the order is on super shaky ground even if it was enforceable.
Well this'll make an interesting legal case.
And an important one too. If it goes for the Truckers, it goes fine. If it goes against them, then the precedent is set, AND IT NEEDS TO BE USED, with EVERY POSSIBLE OBJECTIONABLE THING being brought for funds-freezing. To do otherwise would be to go against the law, after all.
Ezra Levant of Rebel News had an interesting legal breakdown of the legality of the order in Canada in the first place.
TL;DR - The Ontario government was able to get them an "ex parte" order to have the money seized, but the hearing was done in secret without the convoy's lawyers able to challenge the government's claims.
A legal requirement for such an order to be granted requires an indictable defense to have been committed directly related to those monies.
No trucker in Ontario has of yet been charged with anything criminal to date (the Ottawa police's BS mischief tickets for fueling trucks doesn't count), so the order is on super shaky ground even if it was enforceable.