Ontario Court of Appeal Rules COVID Protest Ban Unconstitutional: A Victory for Randy Hillier and Beyond

By Devin Breitenberg

On April 7, 2025, the Ontario Court of Appeal delivered a landmark decision in favor of former MPP Randy Hillier, declaring that the province’s criminalization of COVID-19 demonstrations in spring 2021 was unconstitutional. The ruling, which found that Ontario’s blanket ban on outdoor protests under the Reopening Ontario Act (ROA) violated the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, marks a pivotal moment for civil liberties in Canada. Beyond Hillier’s personal vindication, this decision could have far-reaching implications for hundreds—if not thousands—of others who faced criminal charges or fines for participating in similar protests during the pandemic. Here’s what the ruling means and its potential impact on those caught in the legal crosshairs of lockdown enforcement.

The Case: Randy Hillier vs. Ontario’s Lockdown Regime

Randy Hillier, a former Independent MPP known for his outspoken opposition to COVID-19 restrictions, faced nine charges under the ROA for organizing and attending peaceful anti-lockdown protests in 2021. Five of these charges, tied to demonstrations in towns like Kemptville, Cornwall, and Belleville, carried hefty penalties—up to $100,000 in fines and a year in jail per count. Hillier argued that the restrictions, which prohibited all outdoor gatherings including protests, infringed on his Charter-protected rights to freedom of peaceful assembly (Section 2(c)) and expression (Section 2(b)).

The Ontario Court of Appeal agreed. In a unanimous decision, the three-judge panel ruled that the province’s measures failed to meet the constitutional threshold under Section 1, which allows rights to be limited only if the restriction is demonstrably justified. The court criticized Ontario for crafting exemptions for weddings, funerals, and religious services while offering no such leeway for protests—despite a lack of evidence that outdoor demonstrations posed a unique public health risk. This "one-size-fits-all" approach, the judges concluded, was neither minimally impairing nor proportionate, rendering the ban unconstitutional.

Hillier celebrated the ruling as a triumph for "freedom," stating on X that it "allows many others to have their convictions overturned." With 10 days to propose a remedy (followed by a provincial response), the immediate focus is on resolving his outstanding charges. But the decision’s ripple effects extend far beyond one man’s legal battle.

A Precedent for the Penalized

During Ontario’s stringent lockdown periods, particularly in 2020 and 2021, police issued thousands of tickets and laid numerous criminal charges under the ROA and Emergency Management and Civil Protection Act (EMCPA). While precise numbers are hard to pin down—government data often lags—reports from the time suggest that enforcement was widespread. Individuals caught attending or organizing outdoor protests, especially anti-lockdown rallies, faced fines ranging from $750 to $100,000, with some, like Hillier, charged with quasi-criminal offenses carrying jail time.

The Court of Appeal’s ruling opens the door for these individuals to challenge their penalties. Here’s how it could play out:

Overturning Convictions: Those already convicted under the same ROA provisions struck down in Hillier’s case could seek to have their convictions quashed. Legal experts suggest that defendants would need to demonstrate that their charges stemmed from peaceful outdoor protests banned under the unconstitutional rules. If successful, courts could vacate fines or jail sentences, offering retroactive relief.

Dropping Pending Charges: For cases still in the pipeline—like Hillier’s five remaining charges—prosecutors may opt to withdraw proceedings rather than defend a now-discredited law. This could spare dozens, if not hundreds, of accused individuals from trials or penalties.

Refunding Fines: The trickier question is whether those who paid fines without contesting them can recoup their money. While the ruling doesn’t automatically trigger refunds, it could inspire class-action lawsuits or administrative appeals, particularly if the province acknowledges widespread overreach. Hillier’s remedy proposal, due by mid-April 2025, may set the tone for such outcomes.

A Narrow Scope: Importantly, the decision applies only to the specific ROA restrictions on outdoor protests in spring 2021. Charges under other measures—like indoor gathering bans or mask mandates—aren’t directly affected, nor are penalties upheld in prior cases with different legal contexts (e.g., religious gathering limits). Still, the precedent strengthens arguments against overly broad restrictions in future challenges.

Real-World Impact: Voices from the Ground

The ruling resonates with a segment of the population that felt disproportionately targeted during the pandemic. Adam Skelly, owner of Adamson Barbecue in Toronto, who faced charges for defying indoor dining bans in 2020, called it a "step toward justice" on social media though his case falls outside the ruling’s scope. Others, like anonymous posters claiming fines for attending 2021 rallies, expressed hope that "the courts will finally right these wrongs." The Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms, which supported Hillier’s appeal, hailed the decision as a "victory for democracy," urging others to come forward.

Yet the process won’t be automatic. Legal advocates caution that individuals must proactively seek relief—whether through appeals, motions to stay charges, or negotiations with prosecutors. For those without resources or legal representation, the victory may remain symbolic unless broader action, like a government amnesty, emerges.

Political and Social Fallout

The ruling lands at a time when public discourse about pandemic policies remains polarized. Critics of Ontario Premier Doug Ford’s government, which imposed the restrictions, see it as proof of authoritarian overreach. Hillier and his supporters frame it as a rebuke to "tyranny," potentially galvanizing libertarian and anti-establishment movements. Conversely, public health advocates worry it could undermine confidence in future emergency measures, even if the court didn’t reject all restrictions outright.

For those criminally charged, the decision offers more than legal leverage—it’s a moral vindication. Many felt their dissent was unfairly silenced, and the court’s acknowledgment that peaceful protest deserved protection validates their stance. As person put it "We weren’t criminals; we were citizens exercising our rights."

What’s Next?

The full impact hinges on the remedy phase. If Hillier secures a declaration nullifying his charges, it could streamline relief for others. If the province pushes back—perhaps arguing the ruling shouldn’t apply retroactively—the process could drag on. Either way, the decision marks a turning point, forcing a reckoning with how Canada balanced rights and safety during the COVID-19 era.

For the countless Ontarians ticketed or charged at protests, this is a chance to rewrite their stories. The Ontario Court of Appeal has handed them a powerful tool; now, it’s up to them—and the courts—to wield it. As of April 8, 2025, the fight for justice is far from over, but for the first time in years, the scales may be tipping in their favour.

Devin Breitenberg is a legal consultant and senior counsel at Devin Law LLC and legal contributor  for Veritas Expositae.  You can reach her at devin.breitenberg@veritasexpositae.com