{
  "pbc_pat_king": {
    "url": "https://purebloodcanadians.com/blog/pat-king-ottawa-airport-slow-roll-appeal-source-check.html",
    "status": 200,
    "title": "Pat King airport slow-roll video: what the court record says",
    "snippets": [
      {
        "term": "Pat King",
        "snippet": "Pat King airport slow-roll video: what the court record says Pureblood Canadians Home Blog Outside Canada Archive Stories Videos Downloads About Contact Source-check \u00c2\u00b7 Freedom Convoy / courts Pat King airport slow-roll video: what the court record says Pat King says new/unused evidence about the Ottawa airport slow-roll raises questions about testimony, Tom Marazzo\u00e2\u0080\u0099s role, flight disruption and why the appeal court ordered resentencing instead of a retrial. Here is what can be verified now. Published July 19, 2026 \u00c2\u00b7 Evidence label: social-media claim checked against court record and public reporting Reader note: This article records and checks a public claim. It is not legal advice and does not allege perjury or misconduct as fact. Those claims would require court-tested evidence. What King\u00e2\u0080\u0099s video claims The Facebook video, posted under Pat King\u00e2\u0080\u0099s account, says he is putting the matter before the \u00e2\u0080\u009cCourt of Public Opinion.\u00e2\u0080\u009d In the transcript, King says he has sat on evidence for more than three years and asks why he does not get a retrial. He says an Ottawa airport police-liaison officer testified she had no interaction with him, while his video allegedly shows interaction. He says airport traffic and flight-status material showed \u00e2\u0080\u009cminimal disruptions\u00e2\u0080\u009d and \u00e2\u0080\u009call "
      },
      {
        "term": "R. v. King",
        "snippet": "eraction with him, while his video allegedly shows interaction. He says airport traffic and flight-status material showed \u00e2\u0080\u009cminimal disruptions\u00e2\u0080\u009d and \u00e2\u0080\u009call flights green.\u00e2\u0080\u009d He points to Tom Marazzo\u00e2\u0080\u0099s book/testimony-style material and says Marazzo claimed he organized the Ottawa airport slow roll. He argues that he is being sent back for resentencing on an incident where evidence was not placed before the trial court. What the official Court of Appeal decision says The official decision is R. v. King , 2026 ONCA 522, released July 17, 2026 by the Court of Appeal for Ontario. The panel was Justices David M. Paciocco, Lene Madsen and Renee M. Pomerance. The decision says King had already been convicted at trial on five offences: counselling mischief, mischief, counselling others to obstruct police, counselling others to disobey a court order, and disobeying a court order. The Crown appealed the acquittal on intimidation. The trial judge found that on February 10, 2022, \u00e2\u0080\u009cMr. King personally organized and led a slow roll to jam up traffic at the Ottawa airport and later on Highway 417.\u00e2\u0080\u009d The trial judge also characterized the airport slow roll as \u00e2\u0080\u009cserious public mischief aimed at a major transportation hub with the intent of disrupting passenger arrivals and departures.\u00e2\u0080\u009d The Court of Appeal restored the intimidation conviction and ordered a new sentencing hearing. CBC\u00e2\u0080\u0099s July 17 report summarized the result the same way: the appeal court overturned the intimidation acquittal, entered a conviction and ordered King to be resentenced. Evidence table Point Status What can safely be said King posted the video and makes the claims Verified The Facebook metadata, transcript and contact sheet confirm the public video and claims. Appeal court restored intimidation convi"
      },
      {
        "term": "2026 ONCA 522",
        "snippet": " him, while his video allegedly shows interaction. He says airport traffic and flight-status material showed \u00e2\u0080\u009cminimal disruptions\u00e2\u0080\u009d and \u00e2\u0080\u009call flights green.\u00e2\u0080\u009d He points to Tom Marazzo\u00e2\u0080\u0099s book/testimony-style material and says Marazzo claimed he organized the Ottawa airport slow roll. He argues that he is being sent back for resentencing on an incident where evidence was not placed before the trial court. What the official Court of Appeal decision says The official decision is R. v. King , 2026 ONCA 522, released July 17, 2026 by the Court of Appeal for Ontario. The panel was Justices David M. Paciocco, Lene Madsen and Renee M. Pomerance. The decision says King had already been convicted at trial on five offences: counselling mischief, mischief, counselling others to obstruct police, counselling others to disobey a court order, and disobeying a court order. The Crown appealed the acquittal on intimidation. The trial judge found that on February 10, 2022, \u00e2\u0080\u009cMr. King personally organized and led a slow roll to jam up traffic at the Ottawa airport and later on Highway 417.\u00e2\u0080\u009d The trial judge also characterized the airport slow roll as \u00e2\u0080\u009cserious public mischief aimed at a major transportation hub with the intent of disrupting passenger arrivals and departures.\u00e2\u0080\u009d The Court of Appeal restored the intimidation conviction and ordered a new sentencing hearing. CBC\u00e2\u0080\u0099s July 17 report summarized the result the same way: the appeal court overturned the intimidation acquittal, entered a conviction and ordered King to be resentenced. Evidence table Point Status What can safely be said King posted the video and makes the claims Verified The Facebook metadata, transcript and contact sheet confirm the public video and claims. Appeal court restored intimidation conviction Verifie"
      },
      {
        "term": "intimidation",
        "snippet": "t. What the official Court of Appeal decision says The official decision is R. v. King , 2026 ONCA 522, released July 17, 2026 by the Court of Appeal for Ontario. The panel was Justices David M. Paciocco, Lene Madsen and Renee M. Pomerance. The decision says King had already been convicted at trial on five offences: counselling mischief, mischief, counselling others to obstruct police, counselling others to disobey a court order, and disobeying a court order. The Crown appealed the acquittal on intimidation. The trial judge found that on February 10, 2022, \u00e2\u0080\u009cMr. King personally organized and led a slow roll to jam up traffic at the Ottawa airport and later on Highway 417.\u00e2\u0080\u009d The trial judge also characterized the airport slow roll as \u00e2\u0080\u009cserious public mischief aimed at a major transportation hub with the intent of disrupting passenger arrivals and departures.\u00e2\u0080\u009d The Court of Appeal restored the intimidation conviction and ordered a new sentencing hearing. CBC\u00e2\u0080\u0099s July 17 report summarized the result the same way: the appeal court overturned the intimidation acquittal, entered a conviction and ordered King to be resentenced. Evidence table Point Status What can safely be said King posted the video and makes the claims Verified The Facebook metadata, transcript and contact sheet confirm the public video and claims. Appeal court restored intimidation conviction Verified R. v. King , 2026 ONCA 522, is official and ordered resentencing. The airport slow roll was central to trial findings Verified The ONCA decision quotes the trial judge\u00e2\u0080\u0099s finding that King personally organized and led a slow roll at the Ottawa airport and later Highway 417. Tom Marazzo organized the airport slow roll Claimed / partly sourced by video The video displays and reads material attributed to Mar"
      },
      {
        "term": "resentenced",
        "snippet": "fic at the Ottawa airport and later on Highway 417.\u00e2\u0080\u009d The trial judge also characterized the airport slow roll as \u00e2\u0080\u009cserious public mischief aimed at a major transportation hub with the intent of disrupting passenger arrivals and departures.\u00e2\u0080\u009d The Court of Appeal restored the intimidation conviction and ordered a new sentencing hearing. CBC\u00e2\u0080\u0099s July 17 report summarized the result the same way: the appeal court overturned the intimidation acquittal, entered a conviction and ordered King to be resentenced. Evidence table Point Status What can safely be said King posted the video and makes the claims Verified The Facebook metadata, transcript and contact sheet confirm the public video and claims. Appeal court restored intimidation conviction Verified R. v. King , 2026 ONCA 522, is official and ordered resentencing. The airport slow roll was central to trial findings Verified The ONCA decision quotes the trial judge\u00e2\u0080\u0099s finding that King personally organized and led a slow roll at the Ottawa airport and later Highway 417. Tom Marazzo organized the airport slow roll Claimed / partly sourced by video The video displays and reads material attributed to Marazzo. PBC has not independently authenticated the full book excerpt in this pass. Airport impact was minimal / all flights green Claimed by video The video shows screenshots and says flights were green. The court record still found disruption to airport operations for several hours. Officer lied / perjury Not established That is a serious allegation. The video may raise a question, but perjury is not proven without full transcript, context and a judicial finding. King is legally entitled to a retrial instead of resentencing Not established The Court of Appeal had the case on a Crown appeal and ordered resentencing. Any fur"
      },
      {
        "term": "retrial",
        "snippet": "Pat King airport slow-roll video: what the court record says Pureblood Canadians Home Blog Outside Canada Archive Stories Videos Downloads About Contact Source-check \u00c2\u00b7 Freedom Convoy / courts Pat King airport slow-roll video: what the court record says Pat King says new/unused evidence about the Ottawa airport slow-roll raises questions about testimony, Tom Marazzo\u00e2\u0080\u0099s role, flight disruption and why the appeal court ordered resentencing instead of a retrial. Here is what can be verified now. Published July 19, 2026 \u00c2\u00b7 Evidence label: social-media claim checked against court record and public reporting Reader note: This article records and checks a public claim. It is not legal advice and does not allege perjury or misconduct as fact. Those claims would require court-tested evidence. What King\u00e2\u0080\u0099s video claims The Facebook video, posted under Pat King\u00e2\u0080\u0099s account, says he is putting the matter before the \u00e2\u0080\u009cCourt of Public Opinion.\u00e2\u0080\u009d In the transcript, King says he has sat on evidence for more than three years and asks why he does not get a retrial. He says an Ottawa airport police-liaison officer testified she had no interaction with him, while his video allegedly shows interaction. He says airport traffic and flight-status material showed \u00e2\u0080\u009cminimal disruptions\u00e2\u0080\u009d and \u00e2\u0080\u009call flights green.\u00e2\u0080\u009d He points to Tom Marazzo\u00e2\u0080\u0099s book/testimony-style material and says Marazzo claimed he organized the Ottawa airport slow roll. He argues that he is being sent back for resentencing on an incident where evidence was not placed before the trial court. What the official Court of Appeal decision says The official decision is R. v. King , 2026 ONCA 522, released July 17, 2026 by the Court of Appeal for Ontario. The panel was Justices David"
      },
      {
        "term": "airport",
        "snippet": "Pat King airport slow-roll video: what the court record says Pureblood Canadians Home Blog Outside Canada Archive Stories Videos Downloads About Contact Source-check \u00c2\u00b7 Freedom Convoy / courts Pat King airport slow-roll video: what the court record says Pat King says new/unused evidence about the Ottawa airport slow-roll raises questions about testimony, Tom Marazzo\u00e2\u0080\u0099s role, flight disruption and why the appeal court ordered resentencing instead of a retrial. Here is what can be verified now. Published July 19, 2026 \u00c2\u00b7 Evidence label: social-media claim checked against court record and public reporting Reader note: This article records and checks a public claim. It is not legal advice and does not allege perjury or misconduct as fact. Those claims would require court-tested evidence. What King\u00e2\u0080\u0099s video claims The Facebook video, posted under Pat King\u00e2\u0080\u0099s account, says he is putting the matter before the \u00e2\u0080\u009cCourt of Public Opinion.\u00e2\u0080\u009d In the transcript, King says he has sat on evidence for more than three years and asks why he does not get a retrial. He says an Ottawa airport police-liaison officer testified she had no interaction with him, while his video allegedly shows interaction. He says airport traffic and flight-status material showed \u00e2\u0080\u009cminimal disruptions\u00e2\u0080\u009d and \u00e2\u0080\u009call flights g"
      },
      {
        "term": "slow roll",
        "snippet": "lic Opinion.\u00e2\u0080\u009d In the transcript, King says he has sat on evidence for more than three years and asks why he does not get a retrial. He says an Ottawa airport police-liaison officer testified she had no interaction with him, while his video allegedly shows interaction. He says airport traffic and flight-status material showed \u00e2\u0080\u009cminimal disruptions\u00e2\u0080\u009d and \u00e2\u0080\u009call flights green.\u00e2\u0080\u009d He points to Tom Marazzo\u00e2\u0080\u0099s book/testimony-style material and says Marazzo claimed he organized the Ottawa airport slow roll. He argues that he is being sent back for resentencing on an incident where evidence was not placed before the trial court. What the official Court of Appeal decision says The official decision is R. v. King , 2026 ONCA 522, released July 17, 2026 by the Court of Appeal for Ontario. The panel was Justices David M. Paciocco, Lene Madsen and Renee M. Pomerance. The decision says King had already been convicted at trial on five offences: counselling mischief, mischief, counselling others to obstruct police, counselling others to disobey a court order, and disobeying a court order. The Crown appealed the acquittal on intimidation. The trial judge found that on February 10, 2022, \u00e2\u0080\u009cMr. King personally organized and led a slow roll to jam up traffic at the Ottawa airport and later on Highway 417.\u00e2\u0080\u009d The trial judge also characterized the airport slow roll as \u00e2\u0080\u009cserious public mischief aimed at a major transportation hub with the intent of disrupting passenger arrivals and departures.\u00e2\u0080\u009d The Court of Appeal restored the intimidation conviction and ordered a new sentencing hearing. CBC\u00e2\u0080\u0099s July 17 report summarized the result the same way: the appeal court overturned the intimidation acquittal, entered a conviction and ordered King to be resentenced. Evidence table Point Statu"
      },
      {
        "term": "perjury",
        "snippet": "roll video: what the court record says Pat King says new/unused evidence about the Ottawa airport slow-roll raises questions about testimony, Tom Marazzo\u00e2\u0080\u0099s role, flight disruption and why the appeal court ordered resentencing instead of a retrial. Here is what can be verified now. Published July 19, 2026 \u00c2\u00b7 Evidence label: social-media claim checked against court record and public reporting Reader note: This article records and checks a public claim. It is not legal advice and does not allege perjury or misconduct as fact. Those claims would require court-tested evidence. What King\u00e2\u0080\u0099s video claims The Facebook video, posted under Pat King\u00e2\u0080\u0099s account, says he is putting the matter before the \u00e2\u0080\u009cCourt of Public Opinion.\u00e2\u0080\u009d In the transcript, King says he has sat on evidence for more than three years and asks why he does not get a retrial. He says an Ottawa airport police-liaison officer testified she had no interaction with him, while his video allegedly shows interaction. He says airport traffic and flight-status material showed \u00e2\u0080\u009cminimal disruptions\u00e2\u0080\u009d and \u00e2\u0080\u009call flights green.\u00e2\u0080\u009d He points to Tom Marazzo\u00e2\u0080\u0099s book/testimony-style material and says Marazzo claimed he organized the Ottawa airport slow roll. He argues that he is being sent back for resentencing on an incident where evidence was not placed before the trial court. What the official Court of Appeal decision says The official decision is R. v. King , 2026 ONCA 522, released July 17, 2026 by the Court of Appeal for Ontario. The panel was Justices David M. Paciocco, Lene Madsen and Renee M. Pomerance. The decision says King had already been convicted at trial on five offences: counselling mischief, mischief, counselling others to obstruct police, counselling others to disobey a court order, and disobeying a"
      },
      {
        "term": "personally organized",
        "snippet": " R. v. King , 2026 ONCA 522, released July 17, 2026 by the Court of Appeal for Ontario. The panel was Justices David M. Paciocco, Lene Madsen and Renee M. Pomerance. The decision says King had already been convicted at trial on five offences: counselling mischief, mischief, counselling others to obstruct police, counselling others to disobey a court order, and disobeying a court order. The Crown appealed the acquittal on intimidation. The trial judge found that on February 10, 2022, \u00e2\u0080\u009cMr. King personally organized and led a slow roll to jam up traffic at the Ottawa airport and later on Highway 417.\u00e2\u0080\u009d The trial judge also characterized the airport slow roll as \u00e2\u0080\u009cserious public mischief aimed at a major transportation hub with the intent of disrupting passenger arrivals and departures.\u00e2\u0080\u009d The Court of Appeal restored the intimidation conviction and ordered a new sentencing hearing. CBC\u00e2\u0080\u0099s July 17 report summarized the result the same way: the appeal court overturned the intimidation acquittal, entered a conviction and ordered King to be resentenced. Evidence table Point Status What can safely be said King posted the video and makes the claims Verified The Facebook metadata, transcript and contact sheet confirm the public video and claims. Appeal court restored intimidation conviction Verified R. v. King , 2026 ONCA 522, is official and ordered resentencing. The airport slow roll was central to trial findings Verified The ONCA decision quotes the trial judge\u00e2\u0080\u0099s finding that King personally organized and led a slow roll at the Ottawa airport and later Highway 417. Tom Marazzo organized the airport slow roll Claimed / partly sourced by video The video displays and reads material attributed to Marazzo. PBC has not independently authenticated the full book excerpt in this"
      },
      {
        "term": "Paciocco",
        "snippet": "ed \u00e2\u0080\u009cminimal disruptions\u00e2\u0080\u009d and \u00e2\u0080\u009call flights green.\u00e2\u0080\u009d He points to Tom Marazzo\u00e2\u0080\u0099s book/testimony-style material and says Marazzo claimed he organized the Ottawa airport slow roll. He argues that he is being sent back for resentencing on an incident where evidence was not placed before the trial court. What the official Court of Appeal decision says The official decision is R. v. King , 2026 ONCA 522, released July 17, 2026 by the Court of Appeal for Ontario. The panel was Justices David M. Paciocco, Lene Madsen and Renee M. Pomerance. The decision says King had already been convicted at trial on five offences: counselling mischief, mischief, counselling others to obstruct police, counselling others to disobey a court order, and disobeying a court order. The Crown appealed the acquittal on intimidation. The trial judge found that on February 10, 2022, \u00e2\u0080\u009cMr. King personally organized and led a slow roll to jam up traffic at the Ottawa airport and later on Highway 417.\u00e2\u0080\u009d The trial judge also characterized the airport slow roll as \u00e2\u0080\u009cserious public mischief aimed at a major transportation hub with the intent of disrupting passenger arrivals and departures.\u00e2\u0080\u009d The Court of Appeal restored the intimidation conviction and ordered a new sentencing hearing. CBC\u00e2\u0080\u0099s July 17 report summarized the result the same way: the appeal court overturned the intimidation acquittal, entered a conviction and ordered King to be resentenced. Evidence table Point Status What can safely be said King posted the video and makes the claims Verified The Facebook metadata, transcript and contact sheet confirm the public video and claims. Appeal court restored intimidation conviction Verified R. v. King , 2026 ONCA 522, is official and ordered resentencing. The airport slow roll was central to t"
      }
    ]
  },
  "judgewatch_pat_king": {
    "url": "https://canadianjudges.ca/blog/pat-king-r-v-king-2026-onca-522-appeal-panel-source-trail/",
    "status": 200,
    "title": "Pat King appeal: judges named in R. v. King, 2026 ONCA 522 \u00e2\u0080\u0094 Canadian Judicial Law Watch",
    "snippets": [
      {
        "term": "Pat King",
        "snippet": "Pat King appeal: judges named in R. v. King, 2026 ONCA 522 \u00e2\u0080\u0094 Canadian Judicial Law Watch {\"@context\":\"https://schema.org\",\"@type\":\"Article\",\"headline\":\"Pat King appeal: judges named in R. v. King, 2026 ONCA 522\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-07-18\",\"dateModified\":\"2026-07-18\",\"author\":{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"name\":\"CanadianJudges.ca\"},\"publisher\":{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"name\":\"CanadianJudges.ca\"},\"mainEntityOfPage\":\"https://canadianjudges.ca/blog/pat-king-r-v-king-2026-onca-522-appeal-panel-source-trail/\"} CanadianJudges.ca \u00c2\u00b7 Source trail Pat King appeal: judges named in R. v. King , 2026 ONCA 522 A TikTok about the Freedom Convoy case named Justice Hackland and referred to three Ontario appeal judges. The official Court of Appeal decision identifies the full panel. Search Judges Blog Home / Blog / Pat King appeal judges Ontario Court of Appeal Freedom Convoy Criminal appeal Source trail Bottom line: the official decision is R. v. King , 2026 ONCA 522 , docket COA-25-CR-0309, released July 17, 2026. It identifies three appeal judges and the trial judge whose intimidation acquittal was appealed. Judges named Justice Charles T. Hackland \u00e2\u0080\u0094 Ontario Superior Court of Justice trial judge. The appeal was from his November 22, 2024 acquittal on intimidation and February 19, 2025 sentence."
      },
      {
        "term": "R. v. King",
        "snippet": "Pat King appeal: judges named in R. v. King, 2026 ONCA 522 \u00e2\u0080\u0094 Canadian Judicial Law Watch {\"@context\":\"https://schema.org\",\"@type\":\"Article\",\"headline\":\"Pat King appeal: judges named in R. v. King, 2026 ONCA 522\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-07-18\",\"dateModified\":\"2026-07-18\",\"author\":{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"name\":\"CanadianJudges.ca\"},\"publisher\":{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"name\":\"CanadianJudges.ca\"},\"mainEntityOfPage\":\"https://canadianjudges.ca/blog/pat-king-r-v-king-2026-onca-522-appeal-panel-source-trail/\"} CanadianJudges.ca \u00c2\u00b7 Source trail Pat King appeal: judges named in R. v. King , 2026 ONCA 522 A TikTok about the Freedom Convoy case named Justice Hackland and referred to three Ontario appeal judges. The official Court of Appeal decision identifies the full panel. Search Judges Blog Home / Blog / Pat King appeal judges Ontario Court of Appeal Freedom Convoy Criminal appeal Source trail Bottom line: the official decision is R. v. King , 2026 ONCA 522 , docket COA-25-CR-0309, released July 17, 2026. It identifies three appeal judges and the trial judge whose intimidation acquittal was appealed. Judges named Justice Charles T. Hackland \u00e2\u0080\u0094 Ontario Superior Court of Justice trial judge. The appeal was from his November 22, 2024 acquittal on intimidation and February 19, 2025 sentence. Justice David M. Paciocco \u00e2\u0080\u0094 Co"
      },
      {
        "term": "2026 ONCA 522",
        "snippet": "Pat King appeal: judges named in R. v. King, 2026 ONCA 522 \u00e2\u0080\u0094 Canadian Judicial Law Watch {\"@context\":\"https://schema.org\",\"@type\":\"Article\",\"headline\":\"Pat King appeal: judges named in R. v. King, 2026 ONCA 522\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-07-18\",\"dateModified\":\"2026-07-18\",\"author\":{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"name\":\"CanadianJudges.ca\"},\"publisher\":{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"name\":\"CanadianJudges.ca\"},\"mainEntityOfPage\":\"https://canadianjudges.ca/blog/pat-king-r-v-king-2026-onca-522-appeal-panel-source-trail/\"} CanadianJudges.ca \u00c2\u00b7 Source trail Pat King appeal: judges named in R. v. King , 2026 ONCA 522 A TikTok about the Freedom Convoy case named Justice Hackland and referred to three Ontario appeal judges. The official Court of Appeal decision identifies the full panel. Search Judges Blog Home / Blog / Pat King appeal judges Ontario Court of Appeal Freedom Convoy Criminal appeal Source trail Bottom line: the official decision is R. v. King , 2026 ONCA 522 , docket COA-25-CR-0309, released July 17, 2026. It identifies three appeal judges and the trial judge whose intimidation acquittal was appealed. Judges named Justice Charles T. Hackland \u00e2\u0080\u0094 Ontario Superior Court of Justice trial judge. The appeal was from his November 22, 2024 acquittal on intimidation and February 19, 2025 sentence. Justice David M. Paciocco \u00e2\u0080\u0094 Court of Appea"
      },
      {
        "term": "intimidation",
        "snippet": "in R. v. King , 2026 ONCA 522 A TikTok about the Freedom Convoy case named Justice Hackland and referred to three Ontario appeal judges. The official Court of Appeal decision identifies the full panel. Search Judges Blog Home / Blog / Pat King appeal judges Ontario Court of Appeal Freedom Convoy Criminal appeal Source trail Bottom line: the official decision is R. v. King , 2026 ONCA 522 , docket COA-25-CR-0309, released July 17, 2026. It identifies three appeal judges and the trial judge whose intimidation acquittal was appealed. Judges named Justice Charles T. Hackland \u00e2\u0080\u0094 Ontario Superior Court of Justice trial judge. The appeal was from his November 22, 2024 acquittal on intimidation and February 19, 2025 sentence. Justice David M. Paciocco \u00e2\u0080\u0094 Court of Appeal for Ontario. Justice Lene Madsen \u00e2\u0080\u0094 Court of Appeal for Ontario. Justice Renee M. Pomerance \u00e2\u0080\u0094 Court of Appeal for Ontario. What the official decision says The decision heading lists the appellate panel as \u00e2\u0080\u009cPaciocco, Madsen and Pomerance JJ.A.\u00e2\u0080\u009d The signature block lists \u00e2\u0080\u009cDavid M. Paciocco J.A.\u00e2\u0080\u009d, \u00e2\u0080\u009cL. Madsen J.A.\u00e2\u0080\u009d and \u00e2\u0080\u009cR. Pomerance J.A.\u00e2\u0080\u009d Full names were checked against the Ontario Court of Appeal judge roster. The court allowed the Crown appeal on the intimidation count, entered a conviction under Criminal Code s. 423(1)(g), and sent the matter back for a new sentencing hearing. The source-trail records the public adjudicative roles; it does not make a misconduct finding. TikTok/source context The user-supplied TikTok shortlink resolved to Right Blend video ID 7663577171419532562. The transcript named Justice Hackland and referred to \u00e2\u0080\u009cthree judges\u00e2\u0080\u009d of the Ontario Court of Appeal, but the transcript did not name all three appellate judges. CanadianJudges.ca therefore uses the official Court "
      },
      {
        "term": "Justice Charles T. Hackland",
        "snippet": "reedom Convoy case named Justice Hackland and referred to three Ontario appeal judges. The official Court of Appeal decision identifies the full panel. Search Judges Blog Home / Blog / Pat King appeal judges Ontario Court of Appeal Freedom Convoy Criminal appeal Source trail Bottom line: the official decision is R. v. King , 2026 ONCA 522 , docket COA-25-CR-0309, released July 17, 2026. It identifies three appeal judges and the trial judge whose intimidation acquittal was appealed. Judges named Justice Charles T. Hackland \u00e2\u0080\u0094 Ontario Superior Court of Justice trial judge. The appeal was from his November 22, 2024 acquittal on intimidation and February 19, 2025 sentence. Justice David M. Paciocco \u00e2\u0080\u0094 Court of Appeal for Ontario. Justice Lene Madsen \u00e2\u0080\u0094 Court of Appeal for Ontario. Justice Renee M. Pomerance \u00e2\u0080\u0094 Court of Appeal for Ontario. What the official decision says The decision heading lists the appellate panel as \u00e2\u0080\u009cPaciocco, Madsen and Pomerance JJ.A.\u00e2\u0080\u009d The signature block lists \u00e2\u0080\u009cDavid M. Paciocco J.A.\u00e2\u0080\u009d, \u00e2\u0080\u009cL. Madsen J.A.\u00e2\u0080\u009d and \u00e2\u0080\u009cR. Pomerance J.A.\u00e2\u0080\u009d Full names were checked against the Ontario Court of Appeal judge roster. The court allowed the Crown appeal on the intimidation count, entered a conviction under Criminal Code s. 423(1)(g), and sent the matter back for a new sentencing hearing. The source-trail records the public adjudicative roles; it does not make a misconduct finding. TikTok/source context The user-supplied TikTok shortlink resolved to Right Blend video ID 7663577171419532562. The transcript named Justice Hackland and referred to \u00e2\u0080\u009cthree judges\u00e2\u0080\u009d of the Ontario Court of Appeal, but the transcript did not name all three appellate judges. CanadianJudges.ca therefore uses the official Court of Appeal PDF to identify the panel. Source trail "
      },
      {
        "term": "Paciocco",
        "snippet": "peal judges Ontario Court of Appeal Freedom Convoy Criminal appeal Source trail Bottom line: the official decision is R. v. King , 2026 ONCA 522 , docket COA-25-CR-0309, released July 17, 2026. It identifies three appeal judges and the trial judge whose intimidation acquittal was appealed. Judges named Justice Charles T. Hackland \u00e2\u0080\u0094 Ontario Superior Court of Justice trial judge. The appeal was from his November 22, 2024 acquittal on intimidation and February 19, 2025 sentence. Justice David M. Paciocco \u00e2\u0080\u0094 Court of Appeal for Ontario. Justice Lene Madsen \u00e2\u0080\u0094 Court of Appeal for Ontario. Justice Renee M. Pomerance \u00e2\u0080\u0094 Court of Appeal for Ontario. What the official decision says The decision heading lists the appellate panel as \u00e2\u0080\u009cPaciocco, Madsen and Pomerance JJ.A.\u00e2\u0080\u009d The signature block lists \u00e2\u0080\u009cDavid M. Paciocco J.A.\u00e2\u0080\u009d, \u00e2\u0080\u009cL. Madsen J.A.\u00e2\u0080\u009d and \u00e2\u0080\u009cR. Pomerance J.A.\u00e2\u0080\u009d Full names were checked against the Ontario Court of Appeal judge roster. The court allowed the Crown appeal on the intimidation count, entered a conviction under Criminal Code s. 423(1)(g), and sent the matter back for a new sentencing hearing. The source-trail records the public adjudicative roles; it does not make a misconduct finding. TikTok/source context The user-supplied TikTok shortlink resolved to Right Blend video ID 7663577171419532562. The transcript named Justice Hackland and referred to \u00e2\u0080\u009cthree judges\u00e2\u0080\u009d of the Ontario Court of Appeal, but the transcript did not name all three appellate judges. CanadianJudges.ca therefore uses the official Court of Appeal PDF to identify the panel. Source trail Court of Appeal for Ontario listing: R. v. King , 2026 ONCA 522 Official PDF/document Court of Appeal for Ontario judge roster CanadianJudges.ca source note Editorial boundary: this page names jud"
      }
    ]
  },
  "onca_page": {
    "url": "https://coadecisions.ontariocourts.ca/coa/coa/en/item/24352/index.do",
    "status": 200,
    "title": "R. v. King - Court of Appeal for Ontario",
    "snippets": [
      {
        "term": "R. v. King",
        "snippet": "document.documentElement.classList.remove(\"no-js\"); R. v. King - Court of Appeal for Ontario {\"@context\":\"https://schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"http://uat.ontariocourts.ca/coa/#website\",\"url\":\"http://uat.ontariocourts.ca/coa/\",\"name\":\"Court of Appeal for Ontario\",\"description\":\"\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":\"http://uat.ontariocourts.ca/coa/?s={search_term_string}\",\"query-input\":\"required name=search_term_string\"}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"http://uat.ontariocourts.ca/coa/decisions_main/#webpage\",\"url\":\"http://uat.ontariocourts.ca/coa/decisions_main/\",\"name\":\"Decisions of the Court - Court of Appeal for Ontario\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"http://uat.ontariocourts.ca/coa/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2020-11-19T17:55:28+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2022-01-04T13:58:38+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"http://uat.ontariocourts.ca/coa/decisions_main/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"http://uat.ontariocourts.ca/coa/decisions_main/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"http://uat.ontariocourts.ca/coa/decisions_main/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"item\":{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"http://uat.ontariocourts.ca/coa/\",\"url\":\"http://uat.ontariocourts.ca/coa/\",\"name\":\"Home\"}},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"item\":{\"@"
      }
    ]
  },
  "onca_pdf": {
    "url": "https://coadecisions.ontariocourts.ca/coa/coa/en/24352/1/document.do",
    "status": 200,
    "content_type": "application/pdf"
  },
  "cbc_report": {
    "url": "https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/convoy-leader-pat-king-loses-at-appeal-court-to-be-resentenced-9.7274254",
    "status": 200,
    "title": "Convoy leader Pat King loses at appeal court, to be resentenced | CBC News",
    "snippets": [
      {
        "term": "Pat King",
        "snippet": "Convoy leader Pat King loses at appeal court, to be resentenced | CBC News window.__CONFIG__={\"Client\":{\"contentApi\":{\"baseGraphqlURL\":\"https://www.cbc.ca/graphql\",\"contentList\":{\"lineupIds\":{\"news/multi-lineup-listing\":\"2.9543\"}}},\"environment\":{\"domain\":\"www.cbc.ca\"},\"path\":{\"root\":\"/a\"},\"searchApi\":{\"baseURL\":\"https://www.cbc.ca/search_api/v1/search\",\"autocompleteURL\":\"https://www.cbc.ca/search_api/v1/autocomplete\"},\"stats\":{\"baseURL\":\"//www.cbc.ca/g/stats/js/\",\"urlABTestsConfig\":\"https://www.cbc.ca/network/includes/stats/ab-tests-config.json\"},\"scheduleApi\":{\"sportsBaseURL\":\"https://www.cbc.ca/sports-content/v11/includes/json/schedules/broadcast_schedule.json\"},\"membershipApi\":{\"baseURL\":\"https://subscriptions.cbc.ca/api\",\"middlewareURL\":\"https://www.cbc.ca/membership\",\"loginradiusAppName\":\"cbc-login\",\"loginradiusDomain\":\"https://login.cbc.ca\",\"loginradiusApiKey\":\"3f4beddd-2061-49b0-ae80-6f1f2ed65b37\",\"cbcDomain\":\"cbc.ca\",\"recaptchaPublicKey\":\"6LcvyCsjAAAAAOx_jCT1tUNspqHaTpRqBLPU3XEJ\",\"socialLoginApple\":\"apple\",\"socialLoginAppleNews\":\"apple_cbcnews\",\"socialLoginAppleSports\":\"apple_cbcsports\",\"socialLoginAppleListen\":\"apple_cbclisten\",\"adiApiKey\":\"bc1530fe-bfac-46d8-8bdd-3c433a9e2416\",\"adiURL\":\"https://www.cbc.ca/mdi/profile\"},\"newsletters\":{\"ApiUrl\":\"https://subscriptions.cbc.ca/api\",\"reca"
      },
      {
        "term": "intimidation",
        "snippet": "ct\"==typeof a?n[1]:{start:a,end:e};i.duration||i.end||(i.end=r());LUX.cmd([\"measure\",t,i])},LUX.on=(n,t)=>LUX.cmd([\"on\",n,t]),LUX.send=n=>LUX.cmd([\"send\",n]),LUX.snippetVersion=\"2.0.0\",LUX.ns=e;var d=LUX;return window.LUX_ae=[],window.addEventListener(\"error\",function(n){window.LUX_ae.push(n)}),d}(); {\"@type\":\"ReportageNewsArticle\",\"@context\":\"https://schema.org\",\"name\":\"Convoy leader Pat King loses at appeal court, to be resentenced\",\"alternateName\":\"Court of Appeal overturned the acquittal on intimidation, entered a conviction and ordered a new sentence\",\"headline\":\"Convoy leader Pat King loses at appeal court, to be resentenced\",\"description\":\"Pat King, a key figure in the 2022 convoy protests, will be re-sentenced after the Ontario Court of Appeal sided with Crown prosecutors who argued his original punishment was too lenient.\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-07-17T17:07:40.841Z\",\"dateModified\":\"2026-07-17T17:07:40.841Z\",\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https://i.cbc.ca/ais/1.7210502,1716326406000/full/max/0/default.jpg?im=Crop%2Crect%3D%280%2C0%2C1919%2C1079%29%3B\",\"publisher\":{\"@context\":\"https://schema.org\",\"@type\":\"NewsMediaOrganization\",\"url\":\"https://www.cbc.ca\",\"name\":\"CBC\",\"@id\":\"https://www.cbc.ca/#publisher\",\"logo\":\"https://i.cbc.ca/ais/1.4066392/16x19/max/0/default.jpg\",\"foundingDate\":\"1936-11-02\",\"ethicsPolicy\":\"https://www.cbc.ca/news/about-cbc-news-1.1294364\",\"verificationFactCheckingPolicy\":\"https://www.cbc.ca/news/about-cbc-news-1.1294364\",\"ownershipFundingInfo\":\"https://www.cbc.ca/news/about-cbc-news-1.1294364\",\"actionableFeedbackPolicy\":\"https://www.cbc.ca/news/about-cbc-news-1.1294364\",\"missionCoveragePrioritiesPolicy\":\"https://www.cbc.ca/news/about-cbc-news-1.1294364\",\"diversityPolicy\":\"https://www.cbc.ca/news/about-cbc-news-1.1294364\",\"masthead\":\"https://www.cbc.ca/news/a"
      },
      {
        "term": "resentenced",
        "snippet": "Convoy leader Pat King loses at appeal court, to be resentenced | CBC News window.__CONFIG__={\"Client\":{\"contentApi\":{\"baseGraphqlURL\":\"https://www.cbc.ca/graphql\",\"contentList\":{\"lineupIds\":{\"news/multi-lineup-listing\":\"2.9543\"}}},\"environment\":{\"domain\":\"www.cbc.ca\"},\"path\":{\"root\":\"/a\"},\"searchApi\":{\"baseURL\":\"https://www.cbc.ca/search_api/v1/search\",\"autocompleteURL\":\"https://www.cbc.ca/search_api/v1/autocomplete\"},\"stats\":{\"baseURL\":\"//www.cbc.ca/g/stats/js/\",\"urlABTestsConfig\":\"https://www.cbc.ca/network/includes/stats/ab-tests-config.json\"},\"scheduleApi\":{\"sportsBaseURL\":\"https://www.cbc.ca/sports-content/v11/includes/json/schedules/broadcast_schedule.json\"},\"membershipApi\":{\"baseURL\":\"https://subscriptions.cbc.ca/api\",\"middlewareURL\":\"https://www.cbc.ca/membership\",\"loginradiusAppName\":\"cbc-login\",\"loginradiusDomain\":\"https://login.cbc.ca\",\"loginradiusApiKey\":\"3f4beddd-2061-49b0-ae80-6f1f2ed65b37\",\"cbcDomain\":\"cbc.ca\",\"recaptchaPublicKey\":\"6LcvyCsjAAAAAOx_jCT1tUNspqHaTpRqBLPU3XEJ\",\"socialLoginApple\":\"apple\",\"socialLoginAppleNews\":\"apple_cbcnews\",\"socialLoginAppleSports\":\"apple_cbcsports\",\"socialLoginAppleListen\":\"apple_cbclisten\",\"adiApiKey\":\"bc1530fe-bfac-46d8-8bdd-3c433a9e2416\",\"adiURL\":\"https://www.cbc.ca/mdi/profile\"},\"newsletters\":{\"ApiUrl\":\"https://subscriptions.cbc.ca/api\",\"recaptchaPublicKey\":\"6Lfq5IQlAAAAAEAJMs5ur"
      },
      {
        "term": "retrial",
        "snippet": "ursue the COVID-19 policies it considered to be in the public interest, and to instead change these policies to satisfy Mr. King,\u201d the court wrote.\"}]},{\"type\":\"html\",\"tag\":\"p\",\"attribs\":null,\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"content\":\"King was originally sentenced in February 2025 to a three-month conditional sentence, to be served under house arrest, followed by probation. \"}]},{\"type\":\"html\",\"tag\":\"p\",\"attribs\":null,\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"content\":\"He also received credit for 161 days spent in pretrial custody after his arrest in connection with the protests that gridlocked downtown Ottawa.\"}]},{\"type\":\"html\",\"tag\":\"h2\",\"attribs\":null,\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"content\":\"'Targeted attack on Ottawa residents'\"}]},{\"type\":\"html\",\"tag\":\"p\",\"attribs\":null,\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"content\":\"A three-judge appeal panel concluded King played a central role in what it described as \u201ca co-ordinated, targeted attack on Ottawa residents aimed at coercing change through highly disruptive criminal conduct.\u201d\"}]},{\"type\":\"html\",\"tag\":\"p\",\"attribs\":null,\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"content\":\"The judges said there was \u201coverwhelming evidence\u201d that even before protesters and trucks arrived in Ottawa, King intended to occupy the downtown core by gridlocking streets and causing distress to residents, businesses and workers through continual horn honking and other disruptive tactics.\"}]},{\"type\":\"html\",\"tag\":\"p\",\"attribs\":null,\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"content\":\"\u201cMr. King not only incited these activities, he instructed his followers to resist police and ignore court-ordered injunctions,\u201d the decision said.\"}]},{\"type\":\"html\",\"tag\":\"p\",\"attribs\":null,\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"content\":\"Since coming to Ottawa for the \"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"content\":\"protests known as the Freedom Convoy\"},{\"type\":"
      },
      {
        "term": "overwhelming evidence",
        "snippet": "tag\":\"h2\",\"attribs\":null,\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"content\":\"'Targeted attack on Ottawa residents'\"}]},{\"type\":\"html\",\"tag\":\"p\",\"attribs\":null,\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"content\":\"A three-judge appeal panel concluded King played a central role in what it described as \u201ca co-ordinated, targeted attack on Ottawa residents aimed at coercing change through highly disruptive criminal conduct.\u201d\"}]},{\"type\":\"html\",\"tag\":\"p\",\"attribs\":null,\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"content\":\"The judges said there was \u201coverwhelming evidence\u201d that even before protesters and trucks arrived in Ottawa, King intended to occupy the downtown core by gridlocking streets and causing distress to residents, businesses and workers through continual horn honking and other disruptive tactics.\"}]},{\"type\":\"html\",\"tag\":\"p\",\"attribs\":null,\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"content\":\"\u201cMr. King not only incited these activities, he instructed his followers to resist police and ignore court-ordered injunctions,\u201d the decision said.\"}]},{\"type\":\"html\",\"tag\":\"p\",\"attribs\":null,\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"content\":\"Since coming to Ottawa for the \"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"content\":\"protests known as the Freedom Convoy\"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"content\":\", King has continued to use his social media presence to speak about his court appearances, the convoy and other grievances as a way to raise money for his legal bills. \"}]},{\"type\":\"html\",\"tag\":\"p\",\"attribs\":null,\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"content\":\"Reading the decision live to viewers on Friday, a tearful King was resigned to now serving time behind bars, saying he would do so \u201cwith his head held high.\u201d\"}]},{\"type\":\"html\",\"tag\":\"p\",\"attribs\":null,\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"content\":\"He claimed he did not have the funds to continue fighting the case.\"}]},{\"type\":\"html\",\"tag\":\"p\",\"attribs\":nul"
      }
    ]
  },
  "onca_pdf_text": {
    "snippets": [
      {
        "term": "airport",
        "snippet": "ruary 8, 2022, Mr. King, who had evidently changed his mind about  encouraging compliance  with the injunction , posted encouragement to his  followers to \u201cstand with us and honk the horns \u201d. He said, \u201c[L]et the heavens hear  you\u201d, and \u201cI don\u2019t give a shit anymore. It\u2019s game on boys. Blow those horns \u2026. Let  those horns fire as loud as you can \u201d. He continued, \u201cGet to Ottawa now. Let\u2019s  encircle Ottawa. Let\u2019s give Ottawa a bear hug by citizens and cars and trucks , it  doesn\u2019t matter \u2026 we need to bear hug this city 10 0% and this needs to be done  ASAP.\u201d  [20] The trial judge found that on February 10, 2022, \u201cMr. King personally  organized and led a slow roll to jam up traffic at the Ottawa airport and later on  Highway 417, a major traff ic artery in Ottawa. \u201d He noted that the \u201cslow roll\u201d  constituted \u201cserious public mischief aimed at a major transportation hub with the  intent of disrupting passenger arrivals and departures. \u201d The trial judge concluded        Page:  9        that \u201c[t]his disrupted the operations o f the airport authority for several hours. \u201d He  found that during the \u201cslow roll\u201d,  Mr. King \u201cencouraged honking and laughed at  people who were left \u2018scramblin\u2019\".  [21] The trial judge also found that \u201c[w]hen the police finally became focused on  applying some pres sure on Convoy participants to leave the city and began  handing out notices threatening arrest if they did not leave \u201d, Mr. King, on  February 16 and 17, 2022, responded by  \u201cactively participating in the blocking of  streets, encouraging honking, warning of expected enforcement action, and telling  protesters to hold the line.\u201d   [22] In support of this finding, the trial judge noted that Mr. King gave his followers  detailed instructions for resisting police attempts to intervene:   Where one goes, two more enter! Jam it! See that? See  that? One moves, two more moved up  \u2026. And when   comes time, if need be, this message doesn\u2019t reach the  ears of those, those police officers, we link arms, we sit  on the ground, we turn our back  to the men and women  in our law enforcement because they have already turned  their backs on us.  [23] Against this backdrop, the trial judge referenced a post Mr. King made on  February 13, 2022, where he instructed his followers, \u201cDo not leave Ottawa."
      },
      {
        "term": "slow roll",
        "snippet": " about creating this misery\u201d.  [19] On February 8, 2022, Mr. King, who had evidently changed his mind about  encouraging compliance  with the injunction , posted encouragement to his  followers to \u201cstand with us and honk the horns \u201d. He said, \u201c[L]et the heavens hear  you\u201d, and \u201cI don\u2019t give a shit anymore. It\u2019s game on boys. Blow those horns \u2026. Let  those horns fire as loud as you can \u201d. He continued, \u201cGet to Ottawa now. Let\u2019s  encircle Ottawa. Let\u2019s give Ottawa a bear hug by citizens and cars and trucks , it  doesn\u2019t matter \u2026 we need to bear hug this city 10 0% and this needs to be done  ASAP.\u201d  [20] The trial judge found that on February 10, 2022, \u201cMr. King personally  organized and led a slow roll to jam up traffic at the Ottawa airport and later on  Highway 417, a major traff ic artery in Ottawa. \u201d He noted that the \u201cslow roll\u201d  constituted \u201cserious public mischief aimed at a major transportation hub with the  intent of disrupting passenger arrivals and departures. \u201d The trial judge concluded        Page:  9        that \u201c[t]his disrupted the operations o f the airport authority for several hours. \u201d He  found that during the \u201cslow roll\u201d,  Mr. King \u201cencouraged honking and laughed at  people who were left \u2018scramblin\u2019\".  [21] The trial judge also found that \u201c[w]hen the police finally became focused on  applying some pres sure on Convoy participants to leave the city and began  handing out notices threatening arrest if they did not leave \u201d, Mr. King, on  February 16 and 17, 2022, responded by  \u201cactively participating in the blocking of  streets, encouraging honking, warning of expected enforcement action, and telling  protesters to hold the line.\u201d   [22] In support of this finding, the trial judge noted that Mr. King gave his followers  detailed instructions for resisting police attempts to intervene:   Where one goes, two more enter! Jam it! See that? See  that? One moves, two more moved up  \u2026. And when   comes time, if need be, this message doesn\u2019t reach the  ears of those, those police officers, we link arms, we sit  on the ground, we turn our back  to the men and women  in our law enforcement because they have already turned  their backs on us.  [23] Against this backdrop, the trial judge referenced a post Mr. King made on  February 13, 2022, where he instr"
      },
      {
        "term": "intimidation",
        "snippet": "spondent,  Patrick King.   [3] During his judge-alone Superior Court trial, Mr. King was shown on evidence  largely secured from his own social media posts to have assumed a leadership  role in illegal activities associated with the Freedom Convoy. He was convicted of        Page:  3        five criminal offences: (1) counselling mischief;1 (2) mischief; (3) counselling others  to obstruct police; (4) counselling others to disobey a court order;  and  (5) disobeying a court order. None of those convictions and none of the underlying  factual findings have been appealed.   [4] Mr. King was also acquitted of a charge of personally obstructing police and  three counts related to the offence of intimidation, each such charge  being based  on a different theory of commission.  [5] With respect to the counselling mischief count, the trial judge imposed a 12- month conditional sentence , less nine months pre -sentence credit for time spent  in custody and harsh bail conditions.  He imposed a three-month conditional  sentence and one year of probation on all remaining counts, to be served  concurrently with each other and the counselling mischief count.  [6] This is a Crown appeal of Mr. King\u2019s acquittal on the count of intimidation  contrary to s. 423(1)(g) of the Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46. The gravamen  of this form of intimidation is blocking or obstructing a highway . The trial judge  acquitted Mr. King of this offence after finding that, although he encouraged and  participated in blocking or obstructing highways, the Crown had not proved th e  offence of intimidation because, in the trial judge\u2019s view, it cannot be committed by                                            1 For each of the counselling offences, Mr. King was charged under s. 464(a) of the Criminal Code, R.S.C.  1985, c. C-46. This is a standalone offence where liability is imposed notwithstanding that the offence was  not committed. If the offence is committed, the accused is liable as a party under s. 22( 1) of the Criminal  Code.         Page:  4        blocking or obstructing a highway during a political p rotest unless threats or acts  of violence are used with the intent to intimidate, which had not occurred. He also  held that blocking or obstructing a highway for the purpose of pre"
      },
      {
        "term": "acquittal",
        "snippet": "    COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO  CITATION: R. v. King, 2026 ONCA 522  DATE: 20260717  DOCKET: COA-25-CR-0309  Paciocco, Madsen and Pomerance JJ.A.  BETWEEN  His Majesty the King  Appellant  and  Patrick King   Respondent  Vallery Bayly and Emily Marrocco, for the appellant  Brian Doody, for the respondent  Heard: May 11, 2026  On appeal from the acquittal entered by  Justice Charles T. Hackland  of the  Superior Court of Justice  on November 22, 2024 , with reasons reported at 2024  ONSC 6458, and from the sentence imposed on February 19, 2025, with reasons  reported at 2025 ONSC 1067.  By the Court:  I. OVERVIEW  [1] In late January 2022, hundreds of transport trucks travelled to Ottawa  as  part of a planned political protest against federal COVID-19 mandates in what has        Page:  2        come to be known as the \u201cFreedom Convoy \u201d. Between January 28 , 2022, and  February 20, 2022,  hundreds of Freedom  Convoy trucks and other vehicles, as  well as thousands of individuals, occupied public roads, gridlocking a large area of  downtown Ottawa proximate to Parliament Hill. Evidence presented at the trial that  is the subject of this appeal showed that the gridlock was planned, and that truck  air horns were used strategically by protestors to disrupt public transportation and  commercial activity, and to impede residents\u2019 and business owners\u2019 enjoyment of  their property. The gridlock  and disruption  ended only with multi -force police  involvement, after the federal government declared a state of emergency pursuant  to the Emergencies Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. 22 (4th Supp.).   [2] When properly wi elded, political protest is a critically important democratic  tool that must be jealously guarded. As such, it is constitutionally protected under  ss. 2(b) and 2(d) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms . However, as  we explain below, the freedom to protest does not include the right to engage in  illegal con"
      },
      {
        "term": "conditional sentence",
        "snippet": " a leadership  role in illegal activities associated with the Freedom Convoy. He was convicted of        Page:  3        five criminal offences: (1) counselling mischief;1 (2) mischief; (3) counselling others  to obstruct police; (4) counselling others to disobey a court order;  and  (5) disobeying a court order. None of those convictions and none of the underlying  factual findings have been appealed.   [4] Mr. King was also acquitted of a charge of personally obstructing police and  three counts related to the offence of intimidation, each such charge  being based  on a different theory of commission.  [5] With respect to the counselling mischief count, the trial judge imposed a 12- month conditional sentence , less nine months pre -sentence credit for time spent  in custody and harsh bail conditions.  He imposed a three-month conditional  sentence and one year of probation on all remaining counts, to be served  concurrently with each other and the counselling mischief count.  [6] This is a Crown appeal of Mr. King\u2019s acquittal on the count of intimidation  contrary to s. 423(1)(g) of the Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46. The gravamen  of this form of intimidation is blocking or obstructing a highway . The trial judge  acquitted Mr. King of this offence after finding that, although he encouraged and  participated in blocking or obstructing highways, the Crown had not proved th e  offence of intimidation because, in the trial judge\u2019s view, it cannot be committed by                                            1 For each of the counselling offences, Mr. King was charged under s. 464(a) of the Criminal Code, R.S.C.  1985, c. C-46. This is a standalone offence where liability is imposed notwithstanding that the offence was  not committed. If the offence is committed, the accused is liable as a party under s. 22( 1) of the Criminal  Code.         Page:  4        blocking or obstructing a highway during a political p rotest unless threats or acts  of violence are used with the intent to intimidate, which had not occurred. He also  held that blocking or obstructing a highway for the purpose of pressuring the  government is not undertaken \u201cfor the purpose of compelling another person\u201d,  which is another required element of the offence.  Finally, he concluded that th"
      },
      {
        "term": "overwhelming evidence",
        "snippet": "s demonstrations or protests\u201d.  [75] We agree that caution is warranted when sentencing individuals for conduct  that could potentially fall within a constitutional zone of protection. However, the  conduct in this case far exceed ed the bounds of legitimate expression. This was  not a peaceful prot est that \u201cunfortunately grew out of control and was allowed to  go on and on and morphed into criminal activity\u201d, as the trial judge  suggested in  his sentencing reasons. Rather, this was, from the outset, a coordinated, targeted  attack on Ottawa residents a imed at coercing change through highly disruptive  criminal conduct. As the trial judge observed in his reasons for judgment, there  was \u201coverwhelming evidence\u201d that, even before the arrival of the Freedom Convoy  in Ottawa, Mr. King planned to effect an occu pation; gridlock the area; and cause  acute distress to residents, merchants and workers through the  continuous  honking of truck horns and other disruptive activities. Mr. King not only incited  these activities, he instructed his followers to resist police and ignore court-ordered  injunctions.  [76] This conduct, properly characterized, was an attack on the rule of law, and  the democratic principles essential to the maintenance of a just, peaceful and safe  society. We have not had the benefit of complete sentencin g submissions and  make no comments on what a fit sentence would be. However, a fit sentence must        Page:  33        reflect a full appreciation of the public impact of the offences, as well as the scope,  duration and persistence of Mr. King\u2019s actions.  Released: July 17, 2026 \u201cD.M.P.\u201d    \u201cDavid M. Paciocco J.A.\u201d  \u201cL. Madsen J.A.\u201d  \u201cR. Pomerance J.A.\u201d "
      },
      {
        "term": "Paciocco",
        "snippet": "    COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO  CITATION: R. v. King, 2026 ONCA 522  DATE: 20260717  DOCKET: COA-25-CR-0309  Paciocco, Madsen and Pomerance JJ.A.  BETWEEN  His Majesty the King  Appellant  and  Patrick King   Respondent  Vallery Bayly and Emily Marrocco, for the appellant  Brian Doody, for the respondent  Heard: May 11, 2026  On appeal from the acquittal entered by  Justice Charles T. Hackland  of the  Superior Court of Justice  on November 22, 2024 , with reasons reported at 2024  ONSC 6458, and from the sentence imposed on February 19, 2025, with reasons  reported at 2025 ONSC 1067.  By the Court:  I. OVERVIEW  [1] In late January 2022, hundreds of transport trucks travelled to Ottawa  as  part of a planned political protest against federal COVID-19 mandates in what has        Page:  2        come to be known as the \u201cFreedom Convoy \u201d. Between January 28 , 2022, and  February 20, 2022,  hundreds of Freedom  Convoy trucks and other vehicles, as  well as thousands of individuals, occupied public roads, gridlocking a large area of  downtown Ottawa proximate to Parliament Hill. Evidence presented at the trial that  is the subject of this appeal showed that the gridlock was planned, and that truck  air horns were used strategically by protestors to disrupt public transportation and  commercial activity, and to impede residents\u2019 and business owners\u2019 enjoyment of  their property. The gridlock  and disruption  ended only with multi -force police  involvement, after the federal government declared a state of emergency pursuant  to the Emergencies Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. 22 (4th Supp.).   [2] When properly wi elded, political protest is a critically important democratic  tool that must be jea"
      }
    ]
  }
}