During Day 34 of the Lich Barber trial, we heard submissions from both the crown and the defence regarding the admissibility of the February 2022 injunction hearing transcripts. Defence counsel sought to have the transcripts admitted to the record, which the crown contested.
1/ Good afternoon everyone and Happy New Year. Welcome back to Day 34 of the Lich Barber trial. Tamara Lich and Chris Barber are appearing via Zoom.— The Democracy Fund (@TDF_Can) January 4, 2024
Chris Barber’s defence counsel, Diane Magas, presented excerpts from both injunction hearings, seeking their inclusion in the record. She began by emphasizing the significance of understanding the context behind the injunction judge's comments, explaining his acceptance or rejection of specific terms.
Magas drew attention to the transcript's discussion on the consequences of breaching the injunction, highlighting the judge's clarification that a breach would result in civil contempt, not criminal charges. Additionally, she noted the injunction judge's statement permitting individuals in Ottawa to continue protesting post-injunction.
Lawrence Greenspon, representing Tamara Lich, addressed submissions made by Keith Wilson during the injunction hearing, underscoring that it strictly pertained to honking and noise. Greenspon highlighted the injunction judge's remark that there was ‘no evidence of any breach,’ emphasizing the credibility of a superior court judge who heard experienced counsel's submissions.
8/ Greenspon reiterates that the comment was made by a superior court judge. Greenspon adds, where you have a superior court judge having heard the submissions of experienced counsel, surely the circumstances of the demonstration are relevant - he states that the injunction judge…— The Democracy Fund (@TDF_Can) January 4, 2024
In their reply, after hearing the defence counsel’s submissions, the crown reversed their stance, now agreeing to provide the full transcript to Justice Perkins-McVey for context. They emphasized the injunction judge's statement that the sole issue before him was honking horns, providing context to Greenspon's "no evidence of breach" quote.
Essentially, the crown suggested that the injunction judge referred only to a lack of evidence regarding honking horns, not a lack of evidence of any wrongdoing.
Counsel is set to meet with trial coordination next week as the parties await the scheduling of Day 35.
12/ It looks like that will be all for Day 34. We don't have our next date yet unfortunately. Counsel will be meeting with trial coordination next week to schedule Day 35. Thanks everyone for following along.— The Democracy Fund (@TDF_Can) January 4, 2024