Alberta has an ally in this B.C. Supreme Court Justice
A B.C. Supreme Court judge says the Crown should consider laying criminal contempt of court charges against Green party Leader Elizabeth May and dozens of other demonstrators alleged to have violated a pipeline court injunction.
May, New Democrat MP Kennedy Stewart, and others arrested last month are currently charged with civil contempt of court over allegations that they protested within five metres of two Trans Mountain sites in Burnaby, B.C.
But Justice Kenneth Affleck said the case should not be left to Trans Mountain to pursue as a private litigant and the matter should be taken over by B.C.’s attorney general.
“There is no doubt in my mind that the conduct that is alleged here amounts to criminal contempt of court,” he told Canadian Press Monday. “They are matters of public importance, they ought not to be left in the hands of a private litigant.”
May was arrested with several others on March 23 when she joined protesters to rally against the expansion of the pipeline.
The B.C. Prosecution Service’s civil disobedience policy manual says whether contempt is a civil or criminal matter is determined by “the character and nature of the conduct.”
A dispute of civil contempt would remain between the parties involved, while criminal contempt involves the public interest in administering justice, says a copy of the manual posted to the B.C. government website.
“A criminal contempt often involves a mass disobedience of a court order which tends to bring the administration of justice into disrepute or scorn,” it says.
Trevor Shaw, a lawyer for the B.C. Prosecution Service, told the judge it would carefully consider a referral of the case from the court and report back “on what we see as the next steps that are viable and appropriate.”
Civil and criminal contempt charges have “substantial overlap,” Shaw told Canadian Press. “The contempt, when it’s criminal in nature, is typically reserved for cases where there has been a failure for an effective civil enforcement, there has been particularly egregious conduct, repeat offenders or sentences where there have been violence or damaged property.”
Print this page