Carmanah Forestry Society
1431 Richardson Street
Victoria, BC V8S 1R1
Supreme Court Justice Quijano refused the provincial
governments application for an injunction to arrest the protesting
public at Cathedral Grove, saying that it was inequitable and
unfair.
What does this mean at Cathedral Grove? It
means that two obvious routes can happen and both are in the
government’s hands. The government can open up full open
and meaningful public process as many local governments have
asked them to, or they can arrest people under trespass or mischief
and run the risk of the issue becoming another massive uprising
not unlike Clayoquot Sound. With the threat of injunction relieved,
protesters will not necessarily go to jail or face stiff penalties.
This could seriously affect the number and stature of those
willing to defy the government’s very poorly thought out
plan for Cathedral Grove.
If the government chooses to push ahead and
arrest people, the protesters will then have due process and
a right to argue their point. They would have more rights of
defense such as “reasonable doubt”, full disclosure,
and the full and rigorous processes of criminal law.
HER REASONING
She frames her decision by asking, “What
is the Attorney General’s entitlement to injunctive relieve
at common law when alternative statutory remedies are available?”
She says clearly that the AG has the right to go to the court
but in this case it would not be fair to restrict the public
rights to enter crown land. The AG had the option to use the
offence provisions of the land act, but instead chose the much
more onerous injunction route.
The injunction would be an extraordinary remedy
to restrain public process. It has the potential to affect protesters
due process rights. Because of this burden on due process rights
it is not appropriate to use the injunction remedy when alternative
avenues exist and have not proven to be ineffective.
This judgment demonstrates a trend in the courts
to recognize the seriousness of injunctions and the seriousness
that contempt of court charges and the criminal proceedings
that follow assert on public rights.
It is a really good decision and recognizes
the publics right to due process. It is a step towards restoring
individual rights. In fact she was saying…to try everything
else first, then treat the court as a last resort.
Courts website. www.courts.gov.bc.ca
go to Supreme court link then recent judgements.
-30-
For further info. Syd Haskell
381-1141 cell 360-6090
For the full decision by the court, click
here
