Source-check · Freedom Convoy / courts
Pat King airport slow-roll video: what the court record says
Pat King says new/unused evidence about the Ottawa airport slow-roll raises questions about testimony, Tom Marazzo’s role, flight disruption and why the appeal court ordered resentencing instead of a retrial. Here is what can be verified now.
What King’s video claims
The Facebook video, posted under Pat King’s account, says he is putting the matter before the “Court of Public Opinion.” In the transcript, King says he has sat on evidence for more than three years and asks why he does not get a retrial.
- He says an Ottawa airport police-liaison officer testified she had no interaction with him, while his video allegedly shows interaction.
- He says airport traffic and flight-status material showed “minimal disruptions” and “all flights green.”
- He points to Tom Marazzo’s book/testimony-style material and says Marazzo claimed he organized the Ottawa airport slow roll.
- He argues that he is being sent back for resentencing on an incident where evidence was not placed before the trial court.
What the official Court of Appeal decision says
The official decision is R. v. King, 2026 ONCA 522, released July 17, 2026 by the Court of Appeal for Ontario. The panel was Justices David M. Paciocco, Lene Madsen and Renee M. Pomerance.
The decision says King had already been convicted at trial on five offences: counselling mischief, mischief, counselling others to obstruct police, counselling others to disobey a court order, and disobeying a court order. The Crown appealed the acquittal on intimidation.
The trial judge found that on February 10, 2022, “Mr. King personally organized and led a slow roll to jam up traffic at the Ottawa airport and later on Highway 417.” The trial judge also characterized the airport slow roll as “serious public mischief aimed at a major transportation hub with the intent of disrupting passenger arrivals and departures.”
The Court of Appeal restored the intimidation conviction and ordered a new sentencing hearing. CBC’s July 17 report summarized the result the same way: the appeal court overturned the intimidation acquittal, entered a conviction and ordered King to be resentenced.
Evidence table
| Point | Status | What can safely be said |
|---|---|---|
| King posted the video and makes the claims | Verified | The Facebook metadata, transcript and contact sheet confirm the public video and claims. |
| Appeal court restored intimidation conviction | Verified | R. v. King, 2026 ONCA 522, is official and ordered resentencing. |
| The airport slow roll was central to trial findings | Verified | The ONCA decision quotes the trial judge’s finding that King personally organized and led a slow roll at the Ottawa airport and later Highway 417. |
| Tom Marazzo organized the airport slow roll | Claimed / partly sourced by video | The video displays and reads material attributed to Marazzo. PBC has not independently authenticated the full book excerpt in this pass. |
| Airport impact was minimal / all flights green | Claimed by video | The video shows screenshots and says flights were green. The court record still found disruption to airport operations for several hours. |
| Officer lied / perjury | Not established | That is a serious allegation. The video may raise a question, but perjury is not proven without full transcript, context and a judicial finding. |
| King is legally entitled to a retrial instead of resentencing | Not established | The Court of Appeal had the case on a Crown appeal and ordered resentencing. Any further remedy would require proper legal application/appeal. |
PBC bottom line
This is useful PBC material because it highlights a Canadian court/public-record dispute around the convoy prosecutions. But it should be framed carefully. King’s video may raise legitimate questions about what evidence was or was not used at trial. It does not, by itself, prove perjury, prove a setup, or overturn the Court of Appeal’s decision.
The strongest verified fact is that the official appeal decision now controls the legal posture: the intimidation acquittal was overturned, a conviction was entered, and King was ordered back for sentencing. The strongest unresolved question is whether the video evidence King presents would matter legally if filed through the proper court process.