Article content continued

“It is clear that just because an arm of the government recommends a prosecution does not mean that the Department of Justice will necessarily go along with it.

“It could not have escaped them that Ms. Tobias was in her late 80s, had been a model citizen, had served with the Women’s Reserve Naval Service in World War 2, was a long-time passionate peace activist, did not object to the census itself but rather to the company that had been engaged to create the software.

‘I want to make clear that I am not a pacifist. I am a veteran of WWII…I am, however, opposed to the indiscriminate use of weapons that maim and kill civilians‘

“Yet, somehow, for reasons known only to them, they agreed with Statistics Canada that this case cried out for prosecution.

“They sure are tone deaf to the way the world works.

“Could they not have found a more palatable profile to prosecute as a test case? I mean, really, could the defence have scripted anything better for their cause? Did no one at Justice clue in that, on a public relations perspective, this was an unmitigated disaster? Are they that myopic that they could not see the train wreck ahead?

“Ms. Tobias was a martyr in the making,” Judge Khawly said.

But her martyrdom was not to be.

Judge Khawly not only dismissed all of the defence arguments on why Ms. Tobias should be acquitted but also dismissed the prosecution’s arguments for conviction.

Instead, he said he relied on his own careful examination of Ms. Tobias’ testimony. He had concerns about her powers of recollection, as he would with anyone recalling events more than two years old. He wondered if the “bold words of refusal” she recalls now are coloured, perhaps hardened, by subsequent events.

He said the Crown had not proven beyond a reasonable doubt she intended to breach the Statistics Act on the day in 2011 when she declined to participate in the census.

Outside court after her acquittal, Ms. Tobias said in a quiet voice that she was prepared to go to jail if necessary to abide by her principles, but is pleased she won’t have to.

“I would have done whatever was necessary because I wasn’t willing to fill it in,” she said, and, likewise, would not have paid the $500 maximum fine as it would be an admission of guilt.