Despite model prison behaviour, Coutts blockade leader denied parole over ‘lack of accountability’

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 positive review of his time in prison.

Chris Carbert and Anthony Olienick were found guilty of mischief over $5,000 and possession of a weapon dangerous to the public. However, they were acquitted of the more serious charge of conspiring to murder RCMP officers during the 2022 border protest.

In September, both individuals 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.

According to the parole board report, Carbert had shown dedication to personal growth through various educational and spiritual activities during his time in prison. He completed his high school diploma, worked three prison jobs, attended Bible college, and obtained vocational tickets. Described as “quiet and respectful,” Carbert had not shown any disrespect for authority.

During his hearing, Carbert admitted that attending the Coutts protest was “the worst decision you have ever made.” The report also highlighted how Carbert began stockpiling food and supplies in preparation for living off-grid in the months leading up to the convoy. It mentioned that the global pandemic may have contributed to his self-radicalization through unreliable online sources, leading to disoriented thoughts and a lack of consideration for alternatives.

The week-long blockade at Coutts involved protesters using semis, trucks, and farm vehicles to demonstrate against government-imposed public health measures. Carbert was part of a small group identified as providing security for the convoy. Two weeks into the protest, he and three others were arrested after police seized a significant number of weapons and ammunition.

Investigators believed Carbert was fully prepared to engage officers with deadly force during the protest, viewing it as a war against the police. Despite not being convicted of conspiracy to murder RCMP officers, the judge highlighted the credible threat posed by the individuals involved.

When questioned about the harm caused by his actions, Carbert downplayed the impact, referring to it as an inconvenience for travelers. The parole board found this to be an attempt to minimize his involvement and a sign of cognitive distortions. Carbert’s lack of accountability for his actions, specifically regarding the stockpiling of firearms, was also noted.

One issue that the parole board encountered was Carbert’s refusal to discuss certain aspects of his crimes due to a pending appeal. This lack of accountability and unwillingness to address risk factors led to the denial of his parole application.

In conclusion, the parole board expected Carbert to take responsibility for his actions and demonstrate a clear understanding of the factors that influenced his decisions. Without this acknowledgment and accountability, the board deemed it unsafe to grant him parole at this time.