WESTLOCK, ALTA – Westlock DJ and self-proclaimed freedom fighter Benita Pedersen will be back in court at the end of May following another pre-trial conference to deal with 10 Public Health Act tickets she faces for organizing anti-COVID-19 measures rallies across northern Alberta throughout the first half of 2021.
In Westlock Provincial Court March 30, Judge Michèle Collinson granted an adjournment to May 25 as Pedersen, specialized prosecutions office prosecutor Craig Kallal and Judge Charles Donald Gardner are slated to meet for a fourth pre-trial, case-management conference May 13.
Pedersen, who’s not represented by a lawyer and has yet to enter a plea, faces 10 PHA 73(1) tickets for contravening an order of the Medical Officer of Health, specifically in relation to mass gatherings. Each ticket carries a specified fine of $1,000, plus a 20 per cent victim fine surcharge. This was her 13th court appearance since her first ticket appeared on the docket early in 2021.
Case background
While her tickets are for anti-COVID-19 measures rallies in Westlock Feb. 11 and Feb. 25, plus a series of others in Athabasca, Barrhead, Bonnyville and Lac La Biche, Pedersen came to note hosting “freedom rallies” and “church in the park” events throughout 2021.
Pedersen was also in Ottawa during the February “freedom convoy” protests, interviewing Peace River-Westlock MP Arnold Viersen and Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke MP Cheryl Gallant via livestream on her Facebook page. More recently, Pedersen hosted a convoy-rally-march Feb. 24 in Athabasca that drew about 25 supporters and recently advertised a “freedom rally” for April 2 in Whitecourt.
At her March 2 court appearance, Pedersen told Judge Bruce Garriock one of the reasons she protested the COVID-19 restrictions is that they “inhibited my ability to make a living for the last two years” and that her income has been “adversely affected” and she can’t afford a lawyer. She also claimed the Crown was placing “some pressure on me and attempting to discourage me from making a constitutional argument if I am self-represented.”
At that same appearance Kallal denied placing any pressure on Pedersen, stating they’ve encouraged her to submit a “constitutional notice and to also make some O’Connor applications and (are) not trying to discourage her from doing so.”
During her Feb. 2 court appearance, Kallal said Pedersen’s request for further disclosure from the RCMP was still in the works and noted he had given a letter to Pedersen in response to her request for clarification on what charges she faces and what public health orders were breached — Pedersen has previously told court she’s “seeking the results of the investigation of Dr. Deena Hinshaw confirming that COVID-19 is present and constitutes a public health emergency.”
At her Jan. 5 court appearance, Pedersen said she had requested “full disclosure from the Crown per R v Stinchcombe. “I have detailed to the Crown a number of items that must at minimum be disclosed for me to make a defence. To date I have received nothing except a package of videos of meetings where I was present.”
R v Stinchcombe is a landmark Supreme Court of Canada decision from 1991 that relates to the disclosure of evidence. The unanimous decision found the Crown has a duty to provide the defence with all evidence that could possibly be relevant to the case, whether it is to be presented as evidence or not and regardless of whether it helps or hurts the Crown's case.
At her October court appearance, Pedersen stated her motivation for the past rallies was “love” while previously posting on social media she has “zero intention of paying any of these (fines)” and contends that she hasn’t broken any laws.
