Alberta Health Services, RCMP and other government agencies joined forces to target Mirror café owner and anti-lockdown activist Christopher Scott, alleged his lawyers in Red Deer’s Court of Justice on Wednesday.
Chad Williamson and Yoav Niv were in court to argue that a large amount of disclosure, including emails, meeting notes, text messages and other correspondence leading up to Scott’s May 8, 2021 arrest at a rally at his café and the three-days in jail that followed, should be considered first-party information and must be provided to defence.
Scott, who owns the Whistle Stop Cafe, is facing seven charges of violating the Public Health Act and one violation under the Gaming, Liquor and Cannabis Act. He was charged after health inspectors and RCMP officers made numerous visits between January and April 2021 to check on his restaurant after he had been warned he was violating health orders in place at the time prohibiting in-person dining.
A trial began last August and during the cross-examination of a health inspector, the defence learned of additional disclosure held by Alberta Health Services. An application was made to get the information and 1,000 pages of email correspondence and attachments were turned over in October.
The information led Scott’s lawyers to file a supplemental Charter notice alleging abuse of process, claiming there was a coordinated and politically motivated effort to go after their client. As a result, lawyers requested more disclosure, including additional correspondence from AHS, Alberta Gaming, Liquor and Cannabis, the province’s chief medical officer of health, the Office of the Premier, Alberta Justice and RCMP.
Williamson argued before Justice Jim Glass on Wednesday that the disclosure they had received showed multiple government agencies were part of a “collusory and collaborative” effort to get Scott.
“This is really a dog-pile in the most proverbial sense,” said Williamson in the small courtroom where Scott sat surrounded by about 30 supporters.
Various emails show that in many cases public health did not motivate the investigation into Scott’s activities and officials were more concerned about looking stupid by not taking action against him. Williamson said the defence contends that “this was a political investigation and enforcement was politically motivated.
“I’m absolutely disgusted by some of the emails I’ve read in this disclosure package,” he told the judge.
A previous Charter application filed by the defence calls for all charges to be stayed, alleging that Scott’s constitutional rights to freedom of expression, to freely assemble, peacefully demonstrate and engage in civil disobedience.
Crown prosecutor Peter Mackenzie argued on Wednesday defence lawyers in their disclosure application were trying to confuse the issues at hand by mixing together civil actions against Scott with the criminal case around violating health orders.
It was a way of “kicking up dust” to obscure the allegations that led to Scott’s charges, he said.
Mackenzie called the additional disclosure a “speculative adventure” to gather evidence for their constitutional challenge, by suggesting AHS may be hiding something.
“In fact, there is no evidence of that whatsoever,” he said. “(Scott) is trying to have this court undertake an investigation for him to try to build out his constitutional application.”
AHS lawyer Ashley Groenewegen said the defence appears to be trying to target health authorities in its application. However, it is Scott, not the health authorities, who are on trial, she added.
There is no evidence in the disclosure provided that health authorities fabricated anything or that Scott was targeted for his political beliefs, Groenewegen said.
“It’s clear that AHS was undertaking to propagate its mandatory mandate. It simply responded to information and complaints from the public that Mr. Scott was not complying with medical officer of health orders.”
There was also no evidence in the correspondence that AHS officials directed other agencies to take action against Scott. “There are no directives. There is simply discussion.”
Groenewegen also said the request for more disclosure was so broad that it would be “extremely onerous” to try to gather the information and decide what might be relevant to Scott’s case. “This is essentially an impossible ask.”
The judge is expected to deliver his decision on whether the requested disclosure is first-party information on May 9 in a virtual court appearance. If he decides it is third-party information, the onus is on the defence to make additional arguments as to why it is relevant.
News tips
Like us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter
