A 79-year-old woman who refused to fill out her census form was sentenced to 50 hours of community service Wednesday.

The sentence was handed down after Janet Churnin was convicted of violating the Statistics Act. Churnin had faced a fine of up to $500 and/or up to three months in jail.

“I do feel sort of satisfied with the decision. It’s fine. I did break the law, but I think I had every reason to,” Churnin said afterward.

“There are always consequences to your actions.”

Justice Cathy Mocha dismissed the defence’s arguments, which centred on the violation of Churnin’s Charter rights of freedom of expression and conscience, as well as an unreasonable search and seizure.

“Miss Churnin deliberately refused to fill out the census,” Mocha told court. “It was committed deliberately, but I agree with your counsel that you did this on moral grounds.”

The judge took into account Conservative MP Tony Clement’s comments that refusing to fill out the census shouldn’t be met with a threat of jail time.

Defence lawyer Peter Rosenthal asked for an absolute discharge, but the judge disagreed, saying: “It is general deterrence to stop others from doing this.” She will not have a criminal record once she fulfills her community service.

“I already do a lot of volunteering, so this won’t be an issue,” Churnin said.

When she took the stand Dec. 11, Churnin told court she refused to fill out the form because the data collected would be processed by software provided to Statistics Canada by American arms manufacturer Lockheed Martin.

“I always feel that war is a terrible thing and we should try to resolve our differences by negotiation,” Churnin told court at Old City Hall that day.

Churnin testified that she was worried about the safety and security of that data, considering Lockheed’s ties to the U.S. military and the absolute powers of the U.S. Patriot Act, which allows the government to demand data from any American company, regardless where that information originates.

She also objected to what she considers the uselessness of the short-form census, and the loss of the mandatory long-form census.

Crown attorney Maria Gaspar had argued at the trial that filling out the census didn’t impede her right to express her views about Lockheed, a view the judge agreed with. She said Churnin’s privacy wasn’t violated because there is no evidence that Lockheed built a back door or accessed census data in any way.

MORE ON THESTAR.COM

1921 census provides a glimpse into Toronto’s multicultural past

Toronto woman ready to go to jail over census fight

Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading...

Rosenthal had argued that forcing Churnin to fill out the census would violate her Charter rights of freedom of expression and conscience.

He also argued that her “reasonable expectation of privacy is violated by the failure of StatsCan to deal with concerns about how Lockheed Martin might obtain the data.”

Rosenthal said the government agency didn't take into account Lockheed building a “back door” into the software it sold StatsCan and the ability to extract that data remotely.

Rosenthal represented another census resister, Audrey Tobias, 89, who was found not guilty in October. The judge said the Crown didn’t prove beyond a reasonable doubt she intended to break the law at the exact moment she refused to fill out the census form.

According to Statistics Canada, in 2006 alone, 64 cases were prosecuted and resolved. In 12 of these cases, people were found guilty. The remaining cases resulted in either being dismissed or stayed for various reasons, including the fact that in many cases people agreed to complete the census form.

Tobias was in court Wednesday to support her new friend.

“Janet’s judge doesn’t have empathy,” Tobias told the Star. “And she also doesn’t have a sense of humour. Her decision is really upsetting. But I commend Janet for standing up for her beliefs.”

On a short recess before sentencing, Churnin came over to give Scotch-filled chocolates to the media.

“I’m not sure what to think, but the judge is a bit mean,” Churnin said. “But I’m happy I did it.”

Outside court, Churnin reiterated her beliefs.

“When there is a war going on, if you notice in Syria or any of these places, there are lots of guns and equipment and Heaven knows where they get from and they probably get them from the same place. So arms manufacturers sell to anybody, they are in it for money and not in it for the good deeds.”

But what will happen when the next census rolls around in 2016?

“I suppose I’ll have to make the same decision,” she said. “I have no regrets whatsoever. But I think she made a fair judgment. You can’t have everyone breaking the law.”

Read more about: