A B.C. Supreme Court judge has cleared the way for the City of Kelowna to continue its legal effort to stop the long-running “Freedom Rally” protests at Stuart Park after dismissing an application by organizer David Lindsay seeking to have the city’s petition thrown out.
In a decision by Justice Cathaline Hardwick released on May 7, the city won its case against Lindsay, meaning it can continue to pursue the petition on its merits.
Since the COVID-19 pandemic, Lindsay and his unincorporated association known as Common Law Education and Rights (CLEAR) held rallies every Saturday at Stuart Park, across from Kelowna City Hall. The purpose of these was to protest how government was handling the pandemic.
The rallies have continued for more than six years, though attendance has dwindled in recent years. At their peak, the rallies drew hundreds of people and included speeches over megaphones, tents, and merchandise sales.
After almost three years of the Freedom Rallies, the City of Kelowna filed a petition in the B.C. Supreme Court, seeking to put an end to the events. In the petition, the city called the protests “unlawful events” that violated a number of bylaws, including no permit approval. The city claimed the events were to “create a nuisance and interfere with the use and enjoyment of the park by other persons” and “highly disruptive and detrimental to the community.”
Eight months later, Lindsay and Kelowna resident Lloyd Manchester, who attended many of the “Freedom Rallies,” each filed a response petition. Lindsay filed his on Aug. 1, 2023, while Manchester followed on Aug. 16.
“The petition is, overall, unreasonable, frivolous, and vexatious,” said Hardwick, adding that Lindsay’s rebuttal totalled 28 pages, which she referred to as “prolix”, or “tediously long, drawn-out, and uses an excessive number of words, often to the point of being boring.”
Lindsay and Manchester continued to seek to dismantle the city’s petition by filing their own applications under the Protection of Public Participation Act (PPPA).
According to Hardwick’s decision, the law is intended to protect public expression from lawsuits meant to silence debate on matters of public interest. This includes protecting speech that may be controversial, whether politically or otherwise. This is consistent with the freedom of expression, which is both a fundamental right and value and which is recognized as fostering a pluralistic and healthy democracy.”
On Nov. 24, 2023, the city filed a response to Lindsay’s application.
Lindsay and Manchester’s applications were heard in court over the course of nine days. Lindsay’s arguments were heard in September 2024 and August 2025. In them, he called the city’s bylaws “overbroad,” “unreasonable,” “arbitrary,” and said “that the city has acted in bad faith.”
Meanwhile, the city stated the bylaw violations it sought to enforce did not have anything to do with free speech or the content at the protests. In addition, the city said residents and parties can continue to express their views publicly, in “any manner which does not constitute a breach of the relevant bylaws governing safe, respectful and orderly community use of public spaces.”
After reviewing the respondents’ arguments and the legal cases presented, Harwick found they did not meet the legal standard required under the PPPA for the law to apply to the petition.
Hardwick ruled that the respondents’ arguments are not entitled to have the petition dismissed.
Therefore, Hardwick dismissed Lindsay’s application, however, the petition remains active.
Hardwick explained that the PPPA was designed to prevent courts from trying to determine the city’s motives for starting legal action. Instead, the law requires an objective test, meaning applicants must first prove a clear connection between the lawsuit and protected expression before the court can consider dismissing the petition and awarding remedies.
“This does not entitle the city to any declaratory or injunctive relief as against the petition respondents,” said Hardwick. “This order merely allows the city to continue to pursue the petition on its merits.”
Lindsay has also faced other legal issues connected to protests in Kelowna.