People’s Party of Canada Leader Maxime Bernier has been found guilty of violating a Saskatchewan public health order in 2021.Bernier held a "Mad Max Saskatchewan Tour" outdoor event at a park in Saskatoon May 9, 2021. At the time, COVID-19 restrictions limited public gatherings to a maximum of ten people.More than 40 attendees fought the fines they were assessed for attending the event. The trial in September 2022 had to be held at an event centre to accommodate the many accused.Provincial court judge Quentin Douglas Agnew found all but seven defendants guilty in 38-page judgment issued December 14. For the remainder, Agnew wasn’t convinced “beyond a reasonable doubt” that they attended the event. They may have been misidentified or were only there in passing.During the fall 2022 trial, Bernier told CTV News, “Yes I was there. And I was proud to be there. I’m proud of these people also. They are not ordinary Canadians, they are extraordinary Canadians.”Agnew did not specify specific penalties for the defendants, but violation of public health orders in Saskatchewan can result in a maximum fine of $7,500 for individuals.In a Wednesday post on X, Bernier linked to a media report on the verdict and commented, “Another judge concludes I am a criminal because I spoke to more than 10 people at a rally during covid hysteria.🤷🏻♂️”Others convicted include Peter Christoph Boettcher, Bartel Boot, Jacob Boot, Jaxson Boot, Jenny Boot, Stella Chipesia, Rachael Cole, Breton Harley Cook, Wallace Cottingham, Cheryl Drebit, Gerald Ferguson, Mark L. Friesen, Pierre Marc Robert Groulx, Frederick John Harrison, Joyce Harrison, Mikela June Herbel, Deborah Rose Hretsina, Sarah Huizing, Cory Klassen, Dominika Kosowska, Cody Kuntz, Arley Laroque, Halden Lindjberg, Megan Machiskinic, Darrell T. Mills, Alexandre Nascimento, Terrance Nash, Luiz Augusto B. Penteado, Breanna Peskleway, Wayne Steven Peters, Amanda Philipenko, Joyce Ina Pierce, Adrian B. Scarrow, Michael Styan, Luke Tournier, Michele Tournier, Pamela J. Waldner, Richard Brent Wintringham.Phyllis V. Bourassa, James Bubnick, Daryl B. Cooper, Keesyn Larocque, Emily Schmidt, Tanner Schmidt and Stephanie Wintringham were found not guilty.E.F. Anderson and L.A. Coupal separately represented many of the accused. O.B. Griffiths represented two of the defendants. Only two were self-represented.A brief submitted on Bernier’s behalf suggested that the Ingram case in Alberta that declared that province’s public health orders of no effect might undermine past precedents in Saskatchewan. The justice disagreed.“The decisions of any other court, no matter its level, are of persuasive value only,” Agnew wrote. “Accordingly, I am not bound by Ingram.”Agnew also rejected arguments the case should have been thrown out.“The defendants argue that they are entitled to a stay of proceedings due to discriminatory or arbitrary enforcement or prosecution, based not on constitutional grounds but on common-law principles,” Agnew explained.“It is not clear what remedy is sought by the defendants, which is another reason why it would have been helpful had they put their motion in writing. The Bernier brief appears to argue for a stay of proceedings…However, as the defendants have not brought a Charter motion with respect to abuse of process, I have no power to consider a stay as a remedy…”According to court documents, Mikela Herbel was identified in a “persons of interest” bulletin created by Sp. Cst. Scarrow. Agnew rejected arguments that the use of this bulletin represented unfair targeting of the accused.“Given that the police have non-infinite resources of personnel and equipment, they must choose how those resources are to be employed. The fact that those resources were employed against the defendants is not, in and of itself, evidence of an abuse of process,” Agnew wrote.“The defendants believe they have been unfairly targeted, but that belief is not a substitute for actual evidence. It is certainly possible in a given situation to find that police have inappropriately used their discretion; but such a finding requires evidence, which is singularly lacking here.”
People’s Party of Canada Leader Maxime Bernier has been found guilty of violating a Saskatchewan public health order in 2021.Bernier held a "Mad Max Saskatchewan Tour" outdoor event at a park in Saskatoon May 9, 2021. At the time, COVID-19 restrictions limited public gatherings to a maximum of ten people.More than 40 attendees fought the fines they were assessed for attending the event. The trial in September 2022 had to be held at an event centre to accommodate the many accused.Provincial court judge Quentin Douglas Agnew found all but seven defendants guilty in 38-page judgment issued December 14. For the remainder, Agnew wasn’t convinced “beyond a reasonable doubt” that they attended the event. They may have been misidentified or were only there in passing.During the fall 2022 trial, Bernier told CTV News, “Yes I was there. And I was proud to be there. I’m proud of these people also. They are not ordinary Canadians, they are extraordinary Canadians.”Agnew did not specify specific penalties for the defendants, but violation of public health orders in Saskatchewan can result in a maximum fine of $7,500 for individuals.In a Wednesday post on X, Bernier linked to a media report on the verdict and commented, “Another judge concludes I am a criminal because I spoke to more than 10 people at a rally during covid hysteria.🤷🏻♂️”Others convicted include Peter Christoph Boettcher, Bartel Boot, Jacob Boot, Jaxson Boot, Jenny Boot, Stella Chipesia, Rachael Cole, Breton Harley Cook, Wallace Cottingham, Cheryl Drebit, Gerald Ferguson, Mark L. Friesen, Pierre Marc Robert Groulx, Frederick John Harrison, Joyce Harrison, Mikela June Herbel, Deborah Rose Hretsina, Sarah Huizing, Cory Klassen, Dominika Kosowska, Cody Kuntz, Arley Laroque, Halden Lindjberg, Megan Machiskinic, Darrell T. Mills, Alexandre Nascimento, Terrance Nash, Luiz Augusto B. Penteado, Breanna Peskleway, Wayne Steven Peters, Amanda Philipenko, Joyce Ina Pierce, Adrian B. Scarrow, Michael Styan, Luke Tournier, Michele Tournier, Pamela J. Waldner, Richard Brent Wintringham.Phyllis V. Bourassa, James Bubnick, Daryl B. Cooper, Keesyn Larocque, Emily Schmidt, Tanner Schmidt and Stephanie Wintringham were found not guilty.E.F. Anderson and L.A. Coupal separately represented many of the accused. O.B. Griffiths represented two of the defendants. Only two were self-represented.A brief submitted on Bernier’s behalf suggested that the Ingram case in Alberta that declared that province’s public health orders of no effect might undermine past precedents in Saskatchewan. The justice disagreed.“The decisions of any other court, no matter its level, are of persuasive value only,” Agnew wrote. “Accordingly, I am not bound by Ingram.”Agnew also rejected arguments the case should have been thrown out.“The defendants argue that they are entitled to a stay of proceedings due to discriminatory or arbitrary enforcement or prosecution, based not on constitutional grounds but on common-law principles,” Agnew explained.“It is not clear what remedy is sought by the defendants, which is another reason why it would have been helpful had they put their motion in writing. The Bernier brief appears to argue for a stay of proceedings…However, as the defendants have not brought a Charter motion with respect to abuse of process, I have no power to consider a stay as a remedy…”According to court documents, Mikela Herbel was identified in a “persons of interest” bulletin created by Sp. Cst. Scarrow. Agnew rejected arguments that the use of this bulletin represented unfair targeting of the accused.“Given that the police have non-infinite resources of personnel and equipment, they must choose how those resources are to be employed. The fact that those resources were employed against the defendants is not, in and of itself, evidence of an abuse of process,” Agnew wrote.“The defendants believe they have been unfairly targeted, but that belief is not a substitute for actual evidence. It is certainly possible in a given situation to find that police have inappropriately used their discretion; but such a finding requires evidence, which is singularly lacking here.”
