One of the men serving a sentence for their actions during the Coutts pandemic-era border blockade and protest has been denied parole despite a largely glowing review of his time in prison.
Chris Carbert and Anthony Olienick were convicted of mischief over $5,000 and possession of a weapon dangerous to the public. They were acquitted of the more serious charge of conspiring to murder RCMP officers during the 2022 border protest.
In September, both men were handed 6½-year sentences, but with credit for the time he’d served pending trial, Carbert had two years, seven months left behind bars.
Seven months into his remaining 31-month sentence, Carbert applied for parole. A hearing took place before two Parole Board of Canada members.
“You have dedicated yourself to personal growth through various educational and spiritual activities,” reads the parole board report.
‘Quiet and respectful’
The board’s 10-page, recently released decision sheds light on Carbert’s progress in prison and the reasons the board denied him release on both day and full parole.
The decision notes that Carbert completed his high school diploma, worked three prison jobs, attended Bible college and completed vocational tickets.
Carbert is described in the document as “quiet and respectful,” having “not demonstrated any evidence of an attitude of disrespect for authority.”
During his hearing, the board noted Carbert described attending the Coutts protest as “the worst decision you have ever made.”
‘Your thoughts became disoriented’
In the months leading up to the convoy, Carbert began stockpiling food and supplies in preparation for living off-grid.
“The global pandemic appears to have contributed to your self-radicalization by way of online information through untrustworthy sources,” reads the report.
“Your thoughts became disoriented and you did not consider alternatives,” reads the report.
The week-long blockade involved semis, trucks and farm vehicles as protesters railed against government-imposed public health measures.
Carbert was among a small group identified as acting as security for the convoy.
Two weeks into the protest, Carbert and three others were arrested after police seized a number of guns, body armour, high-capacity magazines and thousands of rounds of ammunition.
Many of the seized weapons were found in a trailer Carbert was staying in with two others.
Prepared to engage
Investigators believed Carbert saw the protest as a war against police and was fully prepared to engage officers with deadly force.
None of the four men were convicted of the most serious offence they faced: conspiracy to murder RCMP officers.
Earlier this year, Christopher Lysak and Jerry Morin pleaded guilty to firearms offences and were handed time-served sentences.
In sentencing Carbert and co-accused Anthony Olienick, the judge noted there was a credible threat to police and the public.
“Both armed themselves for the purpose of using those weapons against police,” said Justice David Labrenz.
“Fortunately, neither man decided the timing was right for a surprise attack.”
‘Lack of accountability’
When asked about the harm he had caused, Carbert noted the “inconvenience” he’d created for people looking to travel across the border.
The board found this was one example of Carbert’s “attempts to minimize” his involvement and evidence of “cognitive distortions.”
When questioned about the firearms found in his trailer, Carbert told the panel that he had one gun for coyote hunting and the other gun was for “showing off.”
“You demonstrated a lack of accountability for your actions, particularly as it relates to the stockpiling of firearms and ammunition, and their intended purpose,” wrote the board.
Appeal pending could cause problems
Another problem the board found was that Carbert refused to discuss certain aspects of his crimes because of a pending appeal.
When this happens, the parole board reverts back to the judge’s findings, said Amy Matychuk, a lawyer and the founder of Prison and Police Law, a firm that specializes in prison justice and police misconduct.
“It might not be the fact that the appeal is pending but just that the parole board considers having an appeal pending as being an indication that someone doesn’t take accountability … they are so focused on accountability.”
Matychuk suspects the board was looking for Carbert to identify risk factors that led to his offences.
“They wanted him to say ‘my risk factors were, I was isolated: here are the steps that I’m taking to make sure I am not isolated … my risk factor was that I was radicalized online: here’s what the steps I’m taking to not become radicalized online anymore,’ and he just didn’t seem willing to admit that he had been radicalized, perhaps,” said Matychuk.
“I think that they wanted him to give them more detail about why he wouldn’t make the same decision again.”
