Freedom Convoy Leaders Sentenced: Conditional Terms, No Regrets
Ontario Justice Heather Perkins-McVey handed down conditional sentences to Freedom Convoy organizers Chris Barber and Tamara Lich after a trial that stretched for more than two years. Barber will serve 12 months of house arrest followed by a six-month curfew, while Lich faces 12 months of house arrest with a reduced curfew because she already spent time in custody. Both must complete 100 hours of community service.
The judge rejected the Crown’s push for multi-year prison terms, calling those requests unfit even as she refused to grant absolute discharges. The court noted an “absence” of remorse as a factor in denying outright forgiveness. The pair were found guilty on mischief charges earlier this year.
Despite the punishments, the judge allowed exceptions so Barber can continue vital work as a trucker and farmer. That practical carve-out kept the penalty closer to a real-world consequence than a complete removal from life and labor. From a Republican perspective, the ruling balanced accountability with common sense.
Absence of remorse and no regrets
Perkins-McVey leaned on victim-impact statements to measure how downtown Ottawa was disrupted, and that influenced the conditional nature of the sentences. Prosecutors had argued for lengthy prison time, but the judge said locking them up for years would be unfit given the nonviolent character of the protest. The nuance here matters: accountability without obliterating livelihoods.
Barber made a short public note of gratitude to supporters and framed the ordeal as a wake-up call for many Canadians. He acknowledged the practical realities of returning to farm and trucking duties under house arrest. His tone was defiant but grounded in the life he must now navigate.
In a , Barber thanked supporters:
We’re still here, and I just wanted to reach out to everybody and say thank you very much for all the support.
I’ve officially lost control of the inboxes on all accounts. I cannot keep up with the messages of support, but I will do my best on the way home to respond to each and every one of you. I just had to come on here and say thanks.
I’m going to sum up what my mother said to me yesterday after court:
“Son, I would rather have you home safe for 18 months than have you sit in a jail cell for six.”
I agree with her. I can still work. I can still do the farm duties. I mean, there’s worse places to be than on the farm, where I have property and I can get some work done and I can still truck.
So again, thank you very much everyone for the support out there. We really appreciate it. It’s been quite the ordeal, and I think we’ve woke a lot of people up around the country, and we continue to wake these people up to … exactly what happened and how the government acted and is still acting.”
Lich explained why she refused to offer remorse she considered dishonest, and she framed her stand as an act of truth telling for those who benefited from the convoy. Her language is blunt and unapologetic, which the judge cited when denying an absolute discharge. For Republicans, her refusal to bow to coerced contrition reads as principled resistance to overreach.
Lich later :
“Son I would rather have you home safe for 18 months than have you sit in a jail cell for six.”
Chris Barber reacts to his sentencing and sends his thanks. We LOVE you @ChrisBarber1975. Canada is forever grateful for your sacrifice and heroism. There’s nothing we can do to thank… pic.twitter.com/JyB8o4xhxi
— Scarlett Grace (@ScarlettGrace92) October 8, 2025
Lawrence and I discussed remorse in a meeting at his office prior to our sentencing hearing in July. I told him I would not, and could not, express remorse as it would be dishonest and disingenuous.
To whom shall I apologize? The thousands of Canadians who stopped planning to take their own lives when the convoy started? To the thousands … who were able to return to their jobs? Or should I apologize to all the Canadians who can kiss their dying loved ones or have their families over for Thanksgiving?
I told Lawrence that day that I’ll serve 100 years in prison before I will ever apologize.
Chris Barber
Lawful protest and political fallout
Official opposition leader Pierre Poilievre publicly defended the pair and criticized the Crown for focusing on the convoy instead of more serious criminal predators. His statement argued the protest targeted emergency measures the courts later found unlawful, framing the sentencing as a test of priorities in law enforcement. That political framing will animate debates about civil liberties and prosecutorial discretion.
Poilievre took to X :
Tamara Lich and Chris Barber peacefully protested the imposition of emergency measures that the Federal Court found to be unlawful and unconstitutional. Instead of pursuing rapists, drug dealers and other monsters, the Crown sought lengthy prison sentences. Justice Perkins-McVey rightly rejected the Crown’s request, and sent Tamara and Chris home to their families. We must get to a justice system that ensures the security and freedom of all Canadians.
The judge also stressed the protest’s nonviolent and accommodating nature even while acknowledging the economic and personal disruptions it caused. That duality — nonviolent protest that still harms local businesses and daily life — is the tightrope courts must walk. Republicans will point to the decision as a reminder that punishment should fit both the conduct and the larger public interest.
What happens next will matter beyond two conditional sentences and 100 hours of community service. There are questions about precedent, prosecutorial choices, and whether authorities will use heavy-handed tactics against future peaceful actions. For many conservative voters, the case crystallizes a larger concern: government power used to shut down dissent.
This ruling leaves a lot unresolved but it also sets a pragmatic tone. The leaders go home, they get to work under restrictions, and the debate over how democracies handle protest and accountability rages on. If the aim is a justice system that protects both security and freedom, the political fight over reform is only starting.
