CITATION: COURT FILE NO.: DATE: ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

Overview [1] The Crown appeals the decision of Boxall J of the Ontario Court of Justice acquitting Christine Decaire of the criminal charge of mischief. [...] Element: commission of the incidental crime by the principal in the course of carrying out the common unlawful purpose Crown alleged that the incidental crime in this case is a larger mischief to obstruct committed by persons substantially involved in the Convoy. [...] Issue 1: Did the trial judge err in the application of principle and party liability for mischief? [17] The Crown argues that the trial judge’s approach to principle and party liable was legally flawed because there is binding Court of Appeal authority, as per Mammolita, that a protestor at the fringe of a group committing mischief may be liable for mischief provided the person is part of the grou. [...] He was alive to the fact that the Court of Appeal found in Mammolita that persons standing on the fringe of a group blocking the roadway could be liable for mischief if their presence prevented others from bypassing the group. [...] [39] Second, the trial judge did consider the context of the Freedom Convoy, its disruption to the public, and the police operations to manage and bring it to an end (points 1 and 2).