Lich-Barber Sentencing & the Ontario Crown Prosecutor’s Questionable Conduct
crown prosecutor Siobhain Wetscher has exhibited outrageous + unethical behaviour
Reader, meet Siobhain Wetscher, the Ontario Crown Prosecutor in the Lich-Barber case. Ms Wetscher is not okay, reader. Ms Wetscher has demonstrated her disconnection to reality, her unhingedness, her lack of integrity, her compromised legal ethics as a crown prosecutor. Ms Wetscher has tarnished the reputation of the Ontario crown prosecutor’s office. I would go so far as to suggest every case she’s worked on needs investigating.
Reader, you know how I’m always saying hate makes us stupid? You know how I’m always saying that when the amygdala drives the bus, we get stupid because the prefrontal cortex goes offline and we lose our critical thinking abilities? Well, this week we saw an example of this in an Ottawa Ontario Court of Justice courtroom.
First of all Ms Wetscher made an insane sentencing recommendation. Secondly, she fraudulently stacked the victim impact statements against Lich and Barber with statements from the Pat King trial, and even statements from Paul Champ’s $300 million class action lawsuit on behalf of Ottawa residents. She came perilously close to contemptible behaviour in court when she tried to tell Justice Perkins-McVey she was wrong about the conflict of interest of the victim impact statements.
Ms Wetscher recommended a sentence of 7 years for Lich and 8 years for Barber, for the charge of mischief. The sentencing recommendation triggered a storm of outrage and shock. Weirdly, even Paul Champ himself tweeted that he thought the 7-8 year sentencing recommendations severe and inappropriate.
It’s a ridiculous and excessive sentencing recommendation for a minor mischief charge where no violence or serious damage occurred. It’s evidence of political prosecution and prosecutorial vengeance. There’s no case where any non violent individual involved in a protest and found guilty of mischief ever served 7 years in jail.
Reader, the block bloc anarchist riots at the G20 meeting in Toronto in 2010 caused the fire bombing of an RBC branch, multiple instances of vandalism, incitement to disruption, riots causing smashing of office building windows with hammers, flag poles, umbrellas, chunks of pavement + mailboxes, and the arson of police cruisers. In that case actual violence and property destruction happened, the sentences didn’t exceed 2 years. A rioter received 45 days in jail for beating a reporter, (assault with a weapon), and on appeal a judge reduced that sentence to 75 days of community time and a year of probation.
Let’s look at what kinds of crimes receive a 7 year sentence, shall we, reader?
In April of this year a man received a 7 year sentence for raping his 18 year old daughter; the rape resulted in a pregnancy.
In 2022 a man received a 7 year sentence for the sexual assault, forcible confinement of international student from India.
In May of this year the crown made a sentencing recommendation of 7 years each for a Cape Breton couple found guilty of sex crimes involving a young girl.
In 2022 former Hedley frontman Jacob Hoggard received a 5 year prison sentence for sexual assault.
In 2019 a Calgary gang rapist received a 9-year prison sentence for sexually assaulting a teen.
In 2023 a Lethbridge father received a 7 year sentence for severely abusing his infant daughter, to the degree that he caused 'permanent and grave' injuries her.
Reader, can you see how Siobhain Wetscher has completely lost the plot here, with her extreme sentencing recommendation? Reader, if you hadn’t noticed by now, in Canada the judiciary seems loathe to put people in jail, even when they commit heinous crimes. We do not do political prosecution here, reader. The last time I checked Canada was not Iran, or China, or Russia, all countries where political prosecution happens frequently.
What did kind of sentences did other Convoy leaders receive?
Coutts Four. According to Global News, Anthony Olienick and Chris Carbert received 6 1/2 years sentences for their roles in the blockade of the Canada-U.S. border crossing at Coutts, Alta. Justice David Labrenz gave them nearly four years credit for time they have already spent in custody. Olienick and Carbert received acquittals on the charge of conspiracy to murder police officers at the blockade. The other two members of the Coutts Four received sentences amounting to time served. Christopher Lysak received a three year sentence for possession of a restricted firearm in an unauthorized place. Jerry Morin received a 3 1/2 year sentence for conspiracy to traffic firearms. Justice
Pat King. Charles Hackland found Pat King guilty of five counts: mischief, counselling to commit mischief, perjury, obstruction of justice, counselling to disobey a court order, and counselling to obstruct police. Crown prosecutor Moiz Karimjee had asked for a 10-year sentence, the maximum penalty for mischief. Note that Karimjee also worked as lead prosecutor on the Lich-Barber case before he recused himself in August of 20231. King received a 12 month sentence, with 9 months credit for time served. King will spend no time in jail, and will serve his remaining three months under house arrest, under “restrictive bail conditions”, according to the CBC.
Jeremy McKenzie, labelled a far-right leader of a dangerous militia group by the federal government and media. Jeremy McKenzie faced 23 charges in five prosecutions that spanned the provinces of Saskatchewan, Alberta, and Québec. His charges included: criminal harassment, uttering threats, assault, pointing a firearm at someone, and ten counts of possessing restricted firearms and prohibited magazines. According to Sask Today, the crown in all three provinces have dropped all charges against McKenzie.
Some excerpts from the Crown’s position on sentencing
Paragraph 3. “The location of the Freedom Convoy was not just any city. Lich and Barber chose Ottawa because it's arguably the most famous city in Canada. It is the national capital city. It is home to the Senate and Parliament and is the center of democracy in our country. It is home to the Supreme Court of Canada, the highest court in our country, representing adherence to the rule of law. Lich and Barber not only picked Ottawa, but they picked the heart of the city - Wellington Street, where these national centers for democracy and law reside. Lich and Barber could have picked another city, they could have demonstrated on the outskirts or in another area of Ottawa, but they specifically targeted Ottawa and Wellington Street because of what these locations stood for nationally. This makes Lich and Barber's offences especially serious, particularly when one considers the many avenues from which they could have voiced their dissent lawfully.”
Paragraph 4. “The impact of Lich and Barber's actions, along with others participating in the Freedom Convoy had an extraordinary impact on Ottawa. The evidence and this Court's findings at trial as well as the numerous Victim and Community Impact Statements (“VIS” and “CIS”) filed on sentencing illustrates this impact.” Reader, remember these VIS referred to by the Crown come from other cases, and do not directly address the defendants
Paragraph 6e. “Police were overwhelmed as the situation escalated and grew out of control.” Wow, reader — the Crown trying to blame Lich and Barber for police and city failure?
Paragraph 7bii. “The Chateau Laurier estimated their losses at approximately $865,572 as a result of having to shut down operations during the demonstration. Suppliers were unable to reach the hotel, the hotel was not able to accommodate persons with disabilities, staff lost wages as a result of shut down, and guests had negative experiences due to certain demonstration participants, and the sound from trucks and horns and air quality.” Reader, the police closed Mackenzie and Laurier streets. Again, Crown blames Lich and Barber for police actions.
Paragraph 8. “The fact that the Freedom Convoy was a largely non-violent demonstration and indeed Lich and Barber advocated for non-violence, did not mean that their presence didn't create an environment that was fearful and intimidating for many.” The Crown wants to prosecute microaggressions, now?
Paragraph 10 and 11. “The severity and scale of the impact is further evidenced by the unprecedented government response on all levels: municipal, provincial, and federal states of emergencies, the invocation of the federal Emergencies Act, for the first time in its 50-year history … For this and reasons set out below, having regard to the nature, duration, impact, and context of the offences as well as the circumstances of the offenders, the Crown is seeking a period of incarceration of seven years on the count of mischief for each Lich and Barber, and one year consecutive for counselling others to disobey a court order for Barber.” Reader, Justice Moseley declared the invocation of the federal emergency illegal!
Paragraph 19. “Ultimately, sentences must be guided by the cardinal principle of proportionality (Bissonette, at para. 50). Section 718.1 of the Code states that a sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender.” Well, reader, Lich and Barber aren’t responsible for all the cost and harm caused by the Freedom Convoy, because the Convoy comprised of multiple factions with their leaders. Also, mischief with no violence doesn’t warrant their sentencing recommendation!
Paragraph 27. “As noted in R. v. King, 2025 ONSC 1067, a Freedom Convoy case, although the Charter protects the right to demonstrate and protest, "when the conduct crosses the line into criminal mischief, a sentence reflecting the principles of denunciation and deterrence is warranted" (King, at para. 28). While the principle of proportionality must be respected, a sentence in the circumstances "must send a message of denunciation for [the] conduct and as a warning to others who seek to force their views on government by pressuring downtown residents and workers" (King, at para. 27).” Reader, see above for the guilty counts and sentence for Pat King. He served no time in jail for five charges. Apples and oranges.
Paragraph 36. “A sentence is required to be just and appropriate having regard to the moral culpability of the offender, his age and his background. A sentence must not be so severe as to be completely out of line with other sentences for similar offenders and similar crimes. It must not be so crushing as to extinguish any hope in the offender of rehabilitating himself and resuming productive life in society following release from prison.” Reader, a father who abused his infant baby received 7 years. A celebrity received 5 years for sexual assault. G20 rioters received sentences under 2 years. No other Convoy defendant in any other case received 7 or 8 years. See above.
“The Freedom Convoy marks the most serious and expansive reported case of mischief in Canadian history.” Simply delusional. The bourgeoisie laptop class was inconvenienced by working class folk and they have feelings about that.
Paragraph 41. “Mosley J. remarked that the Freedom Convoy demonstration in Ottawa, and similar demonstrations in other locations across Canada in January and February 2022 ‘went beyond legitimate protest and reflected an unacceptable breakdown of public order’.” Reader, police bear the responsibility for upholding public order, not Lich and Barber.
Paragraph 44. “These offences are grave by virtue of their interference with legally protected interests and are not made so by the commission or non-commission of other offences. The court therefore cannot rely on the absence of either relevant or irrelevant aggravating factors or unrelated offences as a yardstick from which to measure the severity or gravity of the offences that Lich and Barber have now been found guilty of.” Reader, what? *Rolls eyes*.
Paragraph 47. “It is in this context this Court held that, although there was more than one group involved in the Freedom Convoy movement, and that Lich and Barber were certainly not able to control and influence all the truckers, "there [was] overwhelming evidence that Ms. Lich and Mr. Barber were leaders of a significant group of truckers that arrived in Ottawa on January 28 and stayed until they were removed, commencing February 18" (Lich & Barber, at para. 289-291)” Reader, does having a significant social media presence translate into control and influence of a significant group of truckers?
Paragraph 57. “The Freedom Convoy was not a peaceful protest in the traditional sense. It was a prolonged civil disobedience with a clear intent of pressuring the government through disruption and obstruction.” Reader civil disobedience means non violent, peaceful means free from violence.
Paragraph 60k. “Although Lich and Barber attempted to work with OPS [Ottawa Police Service] to reduce the footprint of the Freedom Convoy, neither party took any meaningful steps to stop it.” Reader, does the Crown really believe that Lich and Barber should receive 7 and 8 years respectively because they didn’t tell their supposed followers go home? Really?
Several aggravating factors mentioned, which essentially point to the bourgeoisie of Ottawa feeling mad the proletariats came and made their presence known. Many assholery comments made by Barber on social media, do we really take those as rationale for a maximum sentence of a mischief conviction? Nah, that’s silly.
Paragraph 65. “The manner in which Barber counseled this disobeyance effectively called for an obstruction of police, as it came in direct response to suspicions of police enforcement: “if you see a vast majority of police coming towards your truck like they do ... like they're building up .. guys lock that door, crawl into that bunk. But before you do that, grab that horn switch and don't let go. Let that fuckin' horn go no matter what time it is, and let it roll as long as possible until they're bustin' your fuckin' windows down”. (Exhibit 25, see Transcript at 25A). Barber was aware of the existence of the Order, as was referenced in his Tik Tok video. Because of this, and his awareness of the effect the Freedom Convoy was having on the city, Barber's moral culpability is high. Not only was Barber flagrantly showing disregard for a court order, but in doing so he was also encouraging others to break the law by committing an act that he was aware was causing direct harm to the community.” Reader, this I find another asshole move. I’ve already posted on social media about sound torture and psychological warfare — it’s real and it’s not okay. However, it doesn’t warrant the extreme sentence recommended. I doubt the evidence exists to prove a case for harm caused by honking in any real way for the court, though that doesn’t mean it didn’t occur.
The Crown will appeal King’s sentence. Support from Brian Peckford apparently makes Lich a celebrity, and supposedly this increases her culpability. Freedom Convoy had a website and apparently that makes a difference. Apparently, “the acts of Lich and Barber and the subsequent offences for which they have been found guilty seriously threatened the rule of law.” Protesting in the national capital threatens the rule of law, according to the Crown. Wow, unhinged.
“The Crown is mindful that a proportionate sentence must not veer into vengeance, which has no place in the sentencing process,” the Crown states in Paragraph 79. Reader, that’s such an admission of guilt or a projection, these describe the same intention to vengeance, perhaps. As if to convince themselves of the veracity of their delusions, the Crown states, “…the “worst offender, worst offence” principle no longer operates as a constraint on the imposition of a maximum sentence …”.
The Crown writes, “the denunciatory and deterrent aspects of the Crown's position address the manner by which Lich and Barber chose to express their beliefs, it does not and should never reflect their beliefs.” Reader, LOL. “The Crown is not seeking to deter protest or dissent,” write the Crown prosecutors. Again LOL. They literally have written multiple times that the choice to protest in dissent at the national capital threatens the rule of law. They literally want to deter anti government protests. They definitely want to deter and denounce public dissent of government policy. It’s the entire foundation of their case, reader!
The Crown considers Big Red offence-related property and in their vengeful legal persecution, want to seize the truck, which accounts for a major portion of Barber’s livelihood. Barber used his truck to inconvenience the bourgeoisie laptop class of Ottawa and therefore should lose his means to earning income. Reader, that’s evil. It’s unnecessary punishment and reminds me of Iran or Russia.
The Crown submitted a 47 page sentencing document, the major highlights of which I’ve given above.
Reader, I’ll leave you with one final fun fact.
Remember Moiz Karimjee? He prosecuted the Pat King case and he began prosecuting the Lich and Barber case and then recused himself a month before the scheduled trial opening date. Take a look below, reader.
Fun fact: Moiz Karimjee donated to the Liberal Party of Canada when already employed as a Crown Prosecutor. I think that’s a bit sketchy when people in such positions donate to a political party in power. I question why a crown prosecutor would make political donations at all, to be honest. It undermines impartiality, a Crown prosecutor represents the King, who has no political affiliation, and he must serve the people, not the politicians. This entire case served political interests nd undermined the integrity of the justice system.
We need integrity in of governance and we need separation of powers.
Radio Canada reported that, “according to materials filed in court, Karimjee did so after reading Lich's memoir for trial preparation, which contained 60 references to Moiz Karimjee by name, some of them defamatory. If Karimjee prosecuted the case, it could have presented a conflict down the line were he to pursue any legal action against Lich.”