Zexi Li, 'Freedom Convoy' lawyers spar over use of the word 'occupation' in court

OTTAWA -

The woman who went to court to get an injunction against the "Freedom Convoy" last year faced the protest organizers in criminal court Monday in some of the most combative lines of questioning the trial has seen so far.

Zexi Li took the stand against Tamara Lich and Chris Barber, who are accused mischief and counselling others to commit mischief for their role in leading the protest, among other charges.

The courtroom was unusually crowded Monday as Li took the stand. She kept her composure in the witness box during the cross-examination.

Early in her evidence, defence lawyers challenged Li's use of the word "occupation" to describe the protest, in which big-rigs, trucks and large crowds of people blocked streets in downtown Ottawa for weeks.

"I object by the continuous use of the word 'occupation,"' Chris Barber's lawyer Diane Magas said.

"It's very irritating to my ears."

Magas said the word was inflammatory, especially because Li is "quite invested."

Li is the lead plaintiff in a proposed $290-million class-action lawsuit against convoy organizers on behalf of downtown Ottawa residents, workers and business owners.

The suit alleges people downtown suffered as thousands of protesters took over city streets with trucks and big-rigs for three weeks.

Lich and Barber are both named defendants in that lawsuit.

Judge Heather Perkins-McVey told Li she would prefer her to use the words "protest" or "demonstration," but said "what she says is up to her."

Like several other witnesses who testified before her, Li described the excessive noise from vehicles honking their horns "for most of the day, if not all day."

"It was difficult to live as a human being," she testified.

On the second week of the protest, Li went to court and got an injunction against the horn-honking. She said the honking became less constant after that, but she would still hear periods of what she called "collective honking" where it sounded like all the horns went off at once for a period of time.

The Crown intends to prove that Lich and Barber had influence over the crowds.

Under cross-examination, Li said she could only recall the date of one specific example of the collective honking on Feb. 7, 2022. She couldn't say how long the honking lasted.

On the third week, Li testified that she went for a walk to record evidence that the injunction was being broken and took a photo of a truck that was carrying jerry cans, which was partially parked on the sidewalk.

She said the driver of the truck "backed the truck into me," as nearby demonstrators honked and shouted at her. She called police who made an incident report, but didn't take any further action. She couldn't tell the court the exact date.

In his cross-examination, Lich's lawyer Lawrence Greenspon explored potential holes in Li's credibility by comparing her answers in court to her testimony before a federal inquiry into the government's use of the Emergencies Act last year.

"There were quite a number of areas where she has been saying things all along and has never really been challenged," Greenspon said outside court Monday.

"I think we can all look at the kind of cross-examination that took place in front of the Public Order Emergency Commission, and it paled in comparison with what she was confronted with today."

For example, at the federal inquiry Li testified that she recalled police coming to her building to inquire about residents throwing eggs at protesters. On Monday she said she only heard about the police inquiries on the Facebook page for her building.

Greenspon also asked if she remembered cursing at protesters during the confrontation involving the truck and the jerry cans.

She confirmed that she did, but Greenspon showed the court a transcript of her testimony under oath last year when she said, "I may have said that."

He also questioned Li's previous court actions.

In his decision to grant the injunction against the honking, Justice Hugh McLean ruled that the protest would be allowed to continue as long as it was lawful and peaceful.

The injunction lasted just 10 days, and Li's lawyer Paul Champ applied to extend it on Feb. 16.

Greenspon pointed out that Champ did not call out the protesters in court for defying the order to remain lawful and peaceful. He did not ask for the injunction to be extended to other aspects of the protest.

The defence lawyer also questioned why Li had a conversation with her lawyer, Emilie Taman, over the lunch break.

After hearing snickers from the spectators in court, Perkins-McVey said it is a serious matter any time anyone raised the spectre of piercing solicitor-client privilege, and threatened to throw out anyone who she felt was not showing the appropriate respect.

Li told the court she had been talking about what to do for lunch when Greenspon interrupted and suggested she shouldn't be talking to her lawyer.

She was seen leaving the courtroom shortly after in tears.

Champ said in an interview last week that Li would have preferred not to testify, but she would do her civic duty if asked.

He said she has suffered harassment since she initially went to court against the convoy and again after she testified in a federal inquiry into the government's use of the Emergencies Act during the protest.

She was provided with a police escort while she was at the courthouse.

The court also heard testimony from Ottawa resident Paul Jorgenson, who said the entrance to his parking garage was completely blocked by trucks. Days into the protest he said he got in his car and hopped a curb to escape downtown.

"We ultimately had to flee town because I was unable to continue working," he told the court, pointing to the "cacophonous" noise and odour from idling vehicles.

When he returned on Feb. 9, he said he had trouble getting food to eat.

"We were unable to order food and we were unable to get food from the grocery store and we had exhausted almost all the food in our pantry," he said.

This report by The Canadian Press was first published Oct. 16, 2023.