The long-running legal saga was set to reach its conclusion on Feb. 12 as Romlewski received a suspended sentence with one day of probation.
The long road to a resolution in the convoy-related trial of protester David Romlewski took another turn in court this week when Romlewski was handed a one-day sentence for mischief, which he intends to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada.
The long-running legal saga was set to reach its conclusion in a sentencing hearing on Feb. 12, when Ontario Court Justice Robert Wadden handed Romlewski a suspended sentence with one day of probation and no conditions or auxiliary orders.
The judge acknowledged he was imposing a “token sentence” on a single mischief charge for Romlewski’s “lone act” of protest during the final day of the 2022 convoy protest.
Romlewski was arrested on Feb. 19, 2022, the second day of police action to clear the protest from downtown streets, as he sat on the ground on Sparks Street and refused to move while a line of RCMP and Ottawa Police Service tactical officers advanced into the so-called “Red Zone.”
He was not affiliated with any of the organized groups that blockaded downtown streets and did not participate in the three-week protest. He said he was in the “Red Zone” that day to question the police authority to dismantle the demonstration.
Romlewski represented himself at his trial in November 2022, when Wadden acquitted him of mischief, but found him guilty of obstructing police.
Romlewski and the Crown both appealed the judge’s decision to the Superior Court in August 2023.
Romlewski contested the guilty verdict for obstructing police, while Crown prosecutors Dallas Mack and Emma Loignon-Giroux appealed his acquittal on two mischief charges.
Evening Update
The Crown was successful in its appeal and Superior Court Justice Adriana Doyle overturned the acquittal in a November 2023 ruling that found him guilty of both charges.
Romlewski promptly filed a notice of intent to pursue his case at the Court of Appeal.
The Court of Appeal recently dismissed Romlewski’s application without a hearing and his case returned to the Ottawa courthouse on Feb. 12 for sentencing from Wadden, the initial trial judge.
“The Crown is seeking, really, a token sentence be imposed,” Wadden told Romlewski. “Which is a suspended sentence with one day of probation and no conditions to follow, no orders to sign.”
In a cordial exchange with the judge, Romlewski objected to the court proceeding with his sentencing hearing while he is awaiting a notice of his application to the Supreme Court. His filing is due on March 11, he told Wadden.
“If leave (to appeal) is granted, then we have this conviction on the record for the entire time until the Supreme Court is brought into action,” Romlewski said. The conviction would be imposed “unnecessarily,” he said, if his leave to appeal is granted.
“I do object to that,” Romlewski said. “Something has been, unfortunately, gravely wrong with the justice system we have, which is why I believe we have to go to the Supreme Court with this.”
Romlewski said he received no reasons from the Court of Appeal in its dismissal of his case, and he called that ruling “questionable considering the contradictory rulings from (Wadden) and Justice Doyle.”
Wadden said it was in the best interest of the court to proceed with the long-delayed sentencing for the sake of “finality” in the case. He said Romlewski was free to pursue his appeal.
“That is the hierarchy of the courts. You know my view of the case, but I was overruled,” Wadden told Romlewski. “The Superior Court reversed my acquittal and found you guilty of mischief … I have to abide by that ruling.”
The rejection by the Court of Appeal was an even higher level in the hierarchy, Wadden said. He told Romlewski he could “go on and pursue (the appeal) at the higher levels if you wish.”
Wadden said his one-day probationary sentence was imposed on Feb. 12 “without prejudice” toward Romlewski’s continued efforts to appeal his case.
In his initial acquittal, Wadden found that Romlewski was not affiliated with any organized protest, he was not a trucker, he didn’t bring a vehicle into the city, he had no contact with organizers, and the judge said there was no documentary evidence linking Romlewski to the protest.
Wadden also noted he did not provide “any material support to the truckers such as transporting fuel or food or providing financial support.”
Romlewski acted on his own agenda, Wadden said, and the lone protest was a “lark of his own.”
In her ruling overturning that acquittal, Justice Doyle said Romlewski’s presence in the Red Zone on the second day of a highly publicized police operation went beyond “mere presence,” and was “aiding and abetting” the mischief.
“Even if David was on the fringe, by his actions he was facilitating the continuation of the mischief,” Doyle ruled.
Romlewski argued he was on Sparks Street that day to question police about their authority to remove the convoy. He said he caused no disruption to any individual or business with his lone act of protest.
His actions of sitting down and questioning police were “not acts of defiance but rather of civil resistance,” Romlewski said.
